The Supreme Court ruled that monthly rent for motels leased as prostitution venues could be subject to seizure. Mr. A was indicted on charges of profiting from criminal activity by leasing a motel knowing it was being used for prostitution. The first and second trials ruled that it was difficult to view all the rent as criminal proceeds, so no seizure took place. However, the Supreme Court ruled that even in situations where general guests and prostitution clients were mixed, the portion of the rent Mr. A received as compensation for providing land and buildings could be subject to seizure. The Supreme Court overturned the original ruling and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.
