The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Article 8(3) and Article 10(2) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment”) of the same Act, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, does not apply to cases where the property, such as criminal proceeds, is a crime victim’s property, but it does not apply to cases where an independent legal interests, such as the crime committed by an organization of crime, are infringed upon together with the crime committed. However, the criminal proceeds of the instant crime by the crime of crime of this case are subject to additional collection pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment [Attachment] of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, Articles 8(1) and 10(1), and 10(2) of the same Act, and such criminal proceeds fall under the property acquired from the victim of criminal proceeds. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection and restriction of criminal damage under the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Act.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the Defendants.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.