A. The misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as to the portion of additional collection states only “unfair sentencing” on the grounds of appeal, but, in light of the stated contents, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to additional collection.

Although the defendants' criminal proceeds (the amount of KRW A54 million, KRW B3,000,000) acquired from the crime of this case should be collected additionally, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection.

B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of collecting property profits under Article 51(3) of the National Sports Promotion Act is to deprive the Defendants of unlawful profits generated from the said criminal act in order to eradicate the criminal acts violating Article 47(2) of the same Act, and prevent them from holding them. Thus, in a case where several persons jointly obtain profits from the said criminal act, the amount of money distributed, namely, the actual profit accrued to them, should be collected separately. Meanwhile, even if the expenses incurred by the Defendants in order to obtain such profits were disbursed from the profits generated from the criminal act, it is merely a method of consuming such profits, and thus, it is not merely a method of consuming such profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1859, Apr. 11, 2013). In light of the above legal principle, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendants received the benefits of the instant case from E and F, or the employees who received the benefits of the instant case from E and E, the Defendants received the benefits of the instant crime or E.