A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts was temporarily denied a part of the crime at an investigative agency, but the lower court, inasmuch as Defendant A denied the crime in the course of investigation and ordered the accomplice to damage the books and the statement of the reduction of the crime, on the grounds of sentencing, recognized the circumstances at an unfavorable level, which led to the misunderstanding of facts that Defendant A denied the crime in the course of investigation and ordered the accomplice to make a statement of damage to the books and the statement of the reduction of the crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) Since Defendant A’s actual profit gained from the crime of this case is less than KRW 22,021,

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, confiscation, additional collection of 22,021,00 won, Defendant C’s imprisonment for a period of four months, suspended execution of one year, community service, 80 hours, additional collection of 4,50,00 won, Defendant D: fine of 5,00,000 won, additional collection of 4,40,000 won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. First of all, as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the allegation that Defendant A led to all crimes at an investigative agency and that there was no fact that Defendant A did not instruct his accomplices to damage the books of account is not sufficient to mention the facts that are premised on sentencing, and the following 2-

B. As seen in paragraph (1), since the sentence imposed by the court below is not deemed to exceed the scope of reasonable discretion, the above argument by the defendant A is without merit. 2) Next, we examine the argument of mistake of facts as to the calculation of the amount of penalty.

A) Whether the relevant legal doctrine is subject to forfeiture and collection, and the recognition of the amount of additional collection, etc. are not related to the facts constituting the elements of crime, and thus, strict certification is not necessary, but also recognized by evidence is reasonable, and where it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to forfeiture and additional collection, it may not be collected (Supreme Court).