Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and for a year of imprisonment for a defendant B, and for a defendant C.

A. The lower court determined that the crime of opening gambling space against the Defendants and the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (such as opening gambling, etc.) committed against the Defendants was a substantive concurrent crime even though the crime of opening gambling space and the crime of violation of the said Act (such as opening gambling, etc.) committed against the Defendants was an ordinary concurrent crime. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the

B) The purpose of additional collection of proceeds derived from the instant crime is to deprive the Defendants of unlawful gains and prevent them from holding them. Accordingly, only the profits that each Defendant actually acquired is to collect. It is impossible to individually calculate the actual profits that the said Defendants acquired from the instant crime.

In addition, Defendant A used a considerable amount of money deposited in cash from the borrowed name account used as the so-called “second bank account” for the re-exchange of money to its members or for the profits paid to its members.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that calculated a surcharge by deeming that the amount deposited in cash in Defendant B’s account was the profit from the instant crime and that the amount deposited in Defendant B’s account was the full amount deposited in cash, and that it was the profit from the instant crime, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the surcharge, or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the collection, which affected

2) The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A and B (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, additional collection, KRW 97,59,903, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year, additional collection, KRW 85,210,00) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the collection, and did not have received cash settlement from Defendant A, thereby making a decision to additionally collect KRW 18,00,000 from the Defendant even though the actual profit was not realized from the instant crime, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the calculation of the amount of additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.