A. Even if the statement of the defendant on the claim for collection of additional collection is based on the statement of the defendant, there is a need to declare additional collection even if the defendant has gained profits through money exchange, and the purport of the relevant law is

B. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too minor.

2. Determination as to the assertion on collection

A. Whether the subject matter of relevant statutory forfeiture or collection is subject to, or the recognition of the amount of collection, etc. is not related to the facts constituting the crime elements, and thus, it is not necessary to prove strict facts, but also recognized by evidence. However, if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to forfeiture or collection, it cannot be collected additionally.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). Meanwhile, as the purpose of collecting additional taxes from a criminal act committed in violation of Article 44(1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) is to deprive the defendant of unlawful profits and prevent him/her from holding them, only the profit actually reverted to him/her shall be collected individually, and the defendant who has no substantial profit shall not be collected additionally.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6019 Decided October 12, 2007). In the event that money is exchanged to game users, profits from the crime is the remaining amount after deducting the amount equivalent to the money exchanged to the game users from the sales amount.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7843 Decided September 27, 2012 and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708 Decided July 10, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do4708, Jul. 10,

The lower court, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, cannot specify the sales or profit of the game room operated by the Defendant, and the period during which the Defendant acquired such profit, etc., was not imposed on the Defendant.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the trial, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is that the Defendant’s game site in this case.