R. Kelly Loses Sex-Trafficking Appeal, but Judge Thinks Victim’s Herpes Meds Overcharged

R. Kelly lost his appeal across the board on his sex trafficking conviction … but one judge thinks he was ordered to pay too much to one of his victims for name-brand herpes medication.

The disgraced R&B singer argued in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York that there was insufficient evidence, certain jurors should not have been empaneled, and counsel was ineffective while questioning potential jurors … among other things, the docs state.

But after a full review, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, including an order requiring Kelly to pay restitution to a female victim for her herpes medication.

However, one judge wasn’t fully down with the decision to make Kelly pay for the victim’s expensive herpes meds.

Judge Richard J. Sullivan agreed with Kelly’s argument that prosecutors inflated the cost of the victim’s herpes meds by asking for restitution based on the high price of name-brand Valtrex, rather than the less-costly generic version.

Kelly was hit with more than $270K to pay for a lifetime supply of Valtrex, which apparently costs a whopping $421.29 for a 30-day supply.

By comparison, Kelly says the generic valacyclovir drug costs an average of $15.31 for a 30-day supply … resulting in just $9,829.09 over her lifetime.

The judge found the lower court erred because there was no “reasonable certainty” the victim would buy Valtrex for the rest of her life, noting it was possible the woman would buy the cheaper generic version and just pocket the rest as a windfall.

Kelly’s lawyer Jennifer Bonjean responded to the court ruling, telling TMZ … “While we are disappointed that the Second Circuit affirmed Mr. Kelly’s convictions, we believe the United States Supreme Court will be interested in reviewing this unprecedented opinion that gives the government limitless discretion to apply the RICO statute to situations absurdly remote from statute’s intent. The statute was intended to punish organized crime – not individual conduct. This decision paves the way for prosecution to charge any individual’s misconduct as a RICO violation.”