Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

, however, the defendant.

A. Defendant A1) The lower court’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is unlawful to collect again the part already included in the criminal proceeds of E, an operator of the instant gambling site, from the Defendant.

In other words, the money received by the Defendant is the salary paid to the employee employed by E, who is an operator of the instant gambling site, and constitutes the expenses paid by E.

This should be collected from E inasmuch as it is only a method of consuming criminal proceeds derived from the instant crime.

The defendant has no criminal proceeds directly acquired from the crime of this case.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 46 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of 35 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion 1) According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant, in collusion with E, etc., committed a crime of gambling opening, etc., and distributed profits generated from the joint crime, and the Defendant received KRW 46 million. Although the Defendant received money from E as benefit, the Defendant received money from E.

Even if the above money was acquired directly by the defendant due to the joint crime, the judgment of the court below that collected 46 million won, which the defendant acquired by the crime of this case, is justifiable.

2) The lower court sentenced the aforementioned sentence by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant was taking into account the degree of participation in the crime, such as taking a major role in the opening of gambling; (b) the benefit gained from the crime is significant; and (c) the Defendant destroyed evidence by damaging computers used in the crime.

In addition to the circumstances considered by the court below, there is no change of circumstances to change the sentencing of the court below, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc.