Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

Defendant .

A. Although the misapprehension of the legal principle (additional charge) is much more likely that Defendants B and D1 did not actually operate the game of this case, and the expenses incurred in operating the game of this case are also reasonable, the lower court collected KRW 81,427,200 from Defendant B and KRW 67,927,200 from Defendant D, which is erroneous in misunderstanding the legal principles as to additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the judgment of the lower court. (2) The sentence (Defendant B: Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months) which the lower court sentenced to suspended sentence of two years, additional collection of KRW 81,427,200, and KRW 2 years, additional collection of KRW 67,927,200, and KRW 200, which is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry provides that, in violation of Article 32(1)7 of the same Act, a game product owned or occupied by a person who exchanged game outcomes in violation of Article 32(1)7 of the same Act shall be confiscated or additionally collected as necessary from gains from such criminal act, and on the other hand, whether it is subject to confiscation or additional collection, or recognition of additional collection should be recognized based on evidence, although it is not related to the constituent elements of the crime, and it does not require strict certification thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do3346, Jun. 22, 1993; 2006Do9314, Mar. 15, 2007). In addition, even if the expenses that a criminal spent for the purpose of collecting criminal proceeds have been consumed from criminal proceeds, this does not necessarily require the adoption of the evidence of the lower court as well as the method of deducting criminal proceeds from criminal proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006.