The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.

A. The lower court’s determination that the Defendant collected 1.2 million won, inasmuch as it is a benefit received while working in a game room, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one-month imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the principal offender made payment to an employee who is an accomplice in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, if it is deemed that such payment was made as part of the distribution of criminal proceeds, the amount equivalent to the benefits that he/she received from the principal offender may be collected from the employee who is an accomplice. However, if the principal offender merely paid to an employee who is an accomplice as part of the expenses in order to obtain criminal proceeds, if it is merely that the principal offender paid the benefits to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6163, Jul. 11, 2018). According to records, KRW 1.2 million that the Defendant received from B or C is merely a benefit that the Defendant received while working in the game room.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below ordered the defendant to collect 1.2 million won as additional collection, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is justified.

B. Unless there exist circumstances, such as where the first instance court’s determination on the allegation of unfair sentencing was deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance court’s sentencing determination as it is in full view of the newly discovered materials in the appellate court’s review process, the sentencing of the first instance court ought to be respected.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant appellate court did not have any particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data, and used game products.