Among them, the part of additional collection against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A KRW 16,049,872 shall be additionally collected.

A. Defendant A did not have any profit accrued from money exchange in the instant crime. Defendant A collected 125,964,360 won from Defendant A, which is 4% of the 3,149,109,000 won for the instant gambling fund (related to Paragraph A of Article 1 of the judgment below), although there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A had been 4% of the 3,149,109,000 won for the instant gambling fund, Defendant A collected 125,964,360 won, which is 4% of the 3,149,109,000 won. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, which affected the conclusion

2) The Prosecutor (Defendant A) committed the instant gambling space establishment and the instant violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds as a completely separate crime. The Defendant A’s maximum amount of KRW 401,246,80 in relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds should not be connected with the criminal proceeds from the establishment of gambling space. Therefore, the Defendant A should collect KRW 16,049,872, which applied KRW 401,246,80 to KRW 400,00 in exchange for money, from Defendant A, but the lower court did not recognize it. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, confiscation, and Defendant B: imprisonment for a period of eight months) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, whether the relevant legal principles are subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection, etc., are not necessary because they are not related to the elements constituting a crime, and therefore, it is not necessary to prove it by evidence. However, if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to it, it shall not be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Gains from Crimes under Article 247 of the Criminal Act / [Attachment Table] 1 and Article 8.