All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, a fine of 15 million won, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts as to additional collection and misunderstanding of legal principles under the Korean Racing Association Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant has a punitive character to deprive all of the goods provided in the similar horse racing in order to protect marina business of marina society, instead of depriving the profits acquired by the Defendant from the crime. As such, the whole of the sales amount of the horse racing tickets acquired by the Defendant and the refund amount acquired by the other party should be additionally collected. Even if the additional collection under the Korean Racing Association Act is deemed to be a profit-free collection under the Korean Racing Association Act, the actual profits acquired by the Defendant can be specified. Nevertheless, the lower court’s failure to impose the additional collection on the ground that the Defendant cannot specify the profits acquired, is erroneous by misapprehending the facts concerning the additional collection or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. Determination

A. The purpose of the crime under Article 50 of the Korean Racing Association Act is to obtain confiscation or collection under Article 2 subparagraph 1 [Attachment Table] 22, Article 8 and Article 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and the above additional collection is to deprive the public prosecutor of unjust enrichment and prevent him/her from holding it. Thus, in cases where several persons jointly obtain profits from similar horse racing business, only the amount distributed, i.e., the profit actually accrued shall be confiscated and collected individually, and in cases where it is impossible to determine the amount distributed, the amount divided shall be confiscated equally.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7483, Oct. 23, 2008; 2007Do635, Nov. 30, 2007). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff has a duty to manage the Plaintiff.