A. According to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to collection against Defendant A), the statement of money exchange sales made by Defendant A to the investigation agency is sufficiently reliable, and according to the above statement and the business account books and the business account books that were seized, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A obtained criminal proceeds from the crime of this case as KRW 116,245,00,000. However, the judgment of the court below which collected only KRW 52,510,000 from the above Defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, two years of suspended sentence, probation, community service, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, suspended execution for two years, probation, and confiscation) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the collection of penalties 1. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① Defendant A made a statement on the business account books presented by the prosecution at the time of the second investigation by the prosecution that “The details of the exchange were recorded in the middle part of the contents of the account books up to 50,000 won. less than 50,000 won, a large amount of 395,000 won out of the average 1,975,000 won, which was 20%, are exchange earnings, and the total amount of 295 days from May 23, 2008 to March 13, 2019, which was calculated as 116,520,000 won, but at the time of the second investigation, Defendant A presented the business account books at the time of the investigation, but all of which Defendant A received the right to seize and stated in the account books as above.”

According to the above argument, the defendant A is the sales amount for the whole business period.