A. The lower court, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, did not sentence confiscation for the reason that the prosecutor’s confiscation was impossible to specify the sentence of confiscation. However, when it is impossible to confiscate under the Criminal Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection under the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the prosecutor of the lower court’s judgment requested forfeiture of 30,00 won in cash (proof No. 1) that H submitted at his own discretion and seized. However, the lower court did not sentence forfeiture on the ground that, since G received KRW 20,000 from the Defendant and received KRW 10,000 won in cash from the Defendant, it could not be classified and identified as KRW 20,000 in cash. 2) Since the collection of 30,000 in accordance with Article 48(1)1 and (2) of the Criminal Act based on the judgment of the lower court was arbitrary, and thus, whether to collect 30,000 won in cash is subject to the court’s discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do515 delivered on September 4, 2002). Thus, the court below's failure to collect 20,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the 20,000 won of the 20,00 won of the 20,000 won of the 20,000 won of the 20,000 won of the 20,000 won of the 20,000 won of the 20

The prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, this case’s assertion of unfair sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal record and relationship, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and