2. First of all, we examine whether criminal proceeds from the instant crime are subject to Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, which is a provision for necessary sunset or collection, and Article 44(2) of the same Act is limited to criminal proceeds falling under Article 44(1) of the same Act. The instant crime is not Article 44(1) of the same Act but Article 45(4) of the same Act, and criminal proceeds are crimes falling under Article 44(2) of the same Act and are not subject to necessary sunset or additional collection under Article 44(2) of the same Act.

In addition, the crime of this case does not constitute a serious crime under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, which is alleged by the Prosecutor as the ground for collection of additional collection, and does not constitute an additional collection under Article 10 (1) and Article 8 (1) of the said Act (in addition, the additional collection under the said Act is not a requisite additional collection, but a voluntary additional collection). Ultimately, Article 48 of the Criminal Act remains. Since the additional collection under Article 48 of the Criminal Act takes place voluntarily, the issue of whether the criminal proceeds from the crime of this case fall under the requirements for additional collection is to be collected at the discretion of the court.

Therefore, the court below did not declare such voluntary collection.

Since it cannot be said that it is illegal, the prosecutor's argument in this part is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.