A. Fact-misunderstanding (defendant B) Defendant B had already included 1,009,570,766 won paid by Defendant A as the settlement price for the card payment to Defendant B, and it cannot be collected in duplicate from Defendant B, but the judgment of the court below ordering an additional collection as above was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below ordered the additional collection.

(B) Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted that: (a) in the summary of his pleading on April 3, 2018, which was submitted after the closure of the pleadings in this case, the sum of the pecuniary gains that Defendant A acquired as a crime in this case should be deemed to be KRW 3,850,00,00; and (b) in fact, Defendant B’s person who uses the Defendant B’s card is a person who actually uses the Defendant A, and thus, the payment of the said card should be collected from Defendant A; (c) this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as a new assertion raised after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal with the reason for appeal; (b) the sentencing (unfair Defendants) declared by the court below (the punishment of Defendant A: 7 years, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for October, confiscation, and additional collection) is unfair.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The purpose of the relevant legal doctrine is to deprive a person of unjust enrichment and prevent him/her from holding it. Thus, in cases where several persons conspired to make a profit through the operation of a similar sports soil site, only the amount of money distributed, i.e., the profit actually accrued shall be collected, and the defendant who has no actual profit shall not be collected as a penalty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do6019, Oct. 12, 2007; 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). (b) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Health Unit, and the lower court in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant A commits the instant crime.