The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 80 hours of probation and community service order, 96.3 million won of surcharge) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of additional collection sentenced by the court below, the defendant's health room, the daily customer of the instant sexual traffic business establishment at an investigative agency is not more than 10 persons, the weekends are not more than 12-13 persons, the average of six persons, and the amount of sexual traffic is 10,000 won (Evidence Record 546-547 pages), and the defendant's profit was 50,000 won among them. The judgment of the court below is justifiable, which calculated an additional collection charge on the basis of the defendant's profit from April 10, 2018 to February 24, 2019, which is the period during which the defendant runs the instant sexual traffic business establishment.

On May 13, 2019, when a prosecutor filed a claim for the preservation for collection of the property under the name of the defendant in Suwon District Court branch, the prosecutor stated the preservation for collection as KRW 69.3 million. However, in light of the summary of the facts charged in the indictment attached to the above written claim, the "69.3 million won" in the amount of the preservation for collection is deemed to be a clerical error of "9.6.3 million won"

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is groundless.