Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

except that this judgment.

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of legal principles, even though the Defendants could specify the pecuniary advantage acquired from the crime of gambling, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, thereby failing to impose additional collection on the Defendants.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, observation of protection, 80 hours of an order to attend education for gambling treatment, Defendant B: 5 million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Article 56 of the Korean Marina Act provides that “The property under Article 50(1)1 through 3 and 6 and subparagraphs 1 through 3 and 8 of Article 51 shall be confiscated.”

Provided, That when it is impossible to confiscate property or it has acquired financial benefits, the value thereof shall be collected additionally.

"........"

It is reasonable to view that the confiscation and collection under Article 56 of the Marina Act in Korea has the nature of deprivation of profit, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the combination of gambling and gambling opening; and (b) the current criminal law system for forfeiture and collection of property resulting from gambling and gambling opening; and (c) the confiscation and collection of property resulting from gambling and gambling opening.

In other words, the purpose of confiscation and additional collection under Article 48 of the Criminal Act is to deprive a person of his/her profits from a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1911, Sept. 27, 1983, etc.) and Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds / [Attachment] Article 2 subparagraph 22, Article 8 and Article 10 of the Criminal Act is to deprive him/her of his/her profits from a crime and prevent him/her from holding the above confiscation and additional collection (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007, etc.).

It should be viewed by the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court Decision on July 30, 2009).