A. Defendant A1’s 20 million won received from misunderstanding of facts was used by Defendant B. Nevertheless, the lower court was equally divided and collected KRW 10 million from Defendant A, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to this point, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (a prison term of four months and additional collection of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were additionally collected KRW 10 million from Defendant B. This is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to collection and statute of limitations as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (A) According to Article 249(1)7 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the statute of limitations for one year is applied to crimes subject to forfeiture, and the additional collection should also be deemed as same as confiscation.

In this case, since a public prosecution was instituted on May 23, 201 after one year from March 201 when the criminal act was completed, the statute of limitations for additional collection has expired, and it cannot be sentenced to additional collection against Defendant B.

B) Unless otherwise, since 20 million won received from W was fully used by Defendant A, Defendant B may not be additionally collected KRW 10 million of the equal division from Defendant B. 2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (2 years of suspended execution in April, 200, community service200 hours, and additional collection KRW 10 million) against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of additional collection by the Defendants, the lower court determined that the Defendants should equally divide the instant KRW 20 million and additionally collect KRW 10 million from the Defendants, based on the following circumstances revealed by the records. A) In the lower court’s court, the Defendant A’s judgment to the effect that “B” transferred from T to oneself.