Defendant

There is an error of misunderstanding of legal principles in the calculation of additional collection charges against E because it is excessive.

2. Whether a judgment of misunderstanding the legal principles on the calculation of the additional collection charges by Defendant E is subject to confiscation or collection, and the recognition of the amount of additional collection does not require strict certification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). The lower court calculated the additional collection charges based on the Defendant’s statement in an investigative agency and the Defendant’s counsel’s written opinion, etc. on June 30, 2017. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the additional collection charges.

Defendant

E’s assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

3. There is no change of circumstances to consider the sentencing of the Defendants after the judgment of the court below regarding the Defendants’ unfair argument of sentencing.

In full view of the following: (a) the Defendants recognized and reflected the commission of the crime; (b) the period of the crime; (c) the scale of the business establishment; (d) the degree of their role and participation; (c) profits from the crime; (d) criminal records; and (e) the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship; (e) the background of the participation in the crime and the circumstances before and after the crime; and (e)

The defendants' argument of sentencing is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit.