게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that sentenced the Defendant to an additional collection charge of KRW 16 million is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles, since 12 million won out of 16 million won earned from the crime of this case, and 4 million won was fully disbursed as employee's salary, and the Defendant did not gain any profit from the crime of this case.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, community service, 240 hours, 1 to 10 hours of confiscation, 16 million won of confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. According to the records of this case as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the defendant received a total of KRW 16 million due to the crime of this case is recognized.
Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that there is no remaining profit from deduction of rent, employee’s salary, etc. spent for the operation of the game of this case, the expenses spent by the offender to obtain criminal proceeds in the collection of criminal proceeds should not be deducted from criminal proceeds because they are not merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008; 2007Do2171, May 10, 2007). However, in calculating the amount of additional collection of criminal proceeds of this case, the expenses claimed by the Defendant should not be deducted.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced 16 million won to the defendant is justified, and this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing recognizes the instant crime; the Defendant did not have any criminal record for the same kind of the instant crime; in particular, there was no criminal record for about twenty years since 1997; and the period of the instant crime is relatively short; and the Defendant appears to have not earned any profit from the instant crime.
On the other hand, this is.