Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H are reversed.

Defendant

F shall be subject to a fine of 3,000,000;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A) with the lawful operation of the game of this case within the scope of business permission, the game of this case was conducted between some customers, and the defendant, the owner of the game of this case, left alone and caused the speculative act using game products. The criminal proceeds subject to collection are limited to the illegal business profits arising from the illegal business which implied the exchange act between customers, and should be excluded from the business profits arising from the normal operation of the game of this case. However, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the profit of the whole business period operated by the game

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspension of execution, Defendant C, and F: fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant D, E, and G: fine of KRW 3 million, and Defendant H: fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Whether Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is subject to confiscation or collection, or recognition of collection amount, etc., are not related to the constituent elements of crime, and thus, it is not necessary to have strict certification, but also should be recognized by evidence. However, if it is impossible to specify criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not be additionally collected.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392 Decided June 26, 2008). Meanwhile, property generated by a criminal act in violation of Article 44(1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) is subject to additional collection pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 1, Article 8, and Article 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Punishment of Concealment of Gains from Crimes, and where several persons jointly obtain profits from a speculative business, only the amount distributed, i.e., the profit actually accrued, should be confiscated and collected individually.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008). The lower court duly adopted it.