A. In the court of the court below, the Co-defendant B and C stated that “The investigative agency stated that daily sales of the head of the game of this case amount to KRW 700,000 per day is the same as collecting money from bareboat exchange machines and game machines, and thus, they do not know accurately.” In particular, the above C reversed the statement made to the investigative agency, and thereby, the daily sales of the head of the game of this case are known to approximately KRW 20-300,000.”

” 고 진술하였으며, 피고인은 이 사건 게임 장의 실제 매출액을 잘 알고 있는 업주로서 웜 심 법정에서 “ 이 사건 게임 장의 하루 매출은 20~30 만 원 정도이다.

Although the sales of the game of this case are 20-300,000 won per day, the court below collected criminal proceeds calculated on the premise that daily sales of the game of this case by the game of this case are 70,000 won per day. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on collection of criminal proceeds and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (an additional collection of KRW 1, 2, 163,80,000,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the surcharge

A. Whether the relevant legal doctrine is subject to confiscation or collection or the recognition of the amount of collection does not require strict proof, and the cost spent by the offender to obtain criminal proceeds was spent from criminal proceeds.

Even if this is merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds, it does not constitute a deduction from criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9314, Mar. 15, 2007; 2005Do7146, Jun. 29, 2006). (b) The lower court determined that the average daily sales of Defendant B and C in an investigative agency are KRW 700,00 or KRW 1 million.