2. Determination

A. Article 44(2) and (3) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds / [Attachment Table] Article 14 subparag. 14, Article 8, and Article 10 of the Act on the Promotion of ex officio Judgment on the portion of the additional collection are subject to the additional collection, and the above additional collection aims to deprive the criminal of his/her unlawful profits and prevent him/her from holding them. Thus, in cases where he/she gains profits from his/her speculative business jointly, the additional collection shall be made to individually confiscate only the distributed amount, i.e., the profits actually accrued, and if it is impossible to determine the distributed amount, the amount shall be equally divided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do635, Nov. 30, 2007).

Even if it is nothing more than a method of consuming criminal proceeds, it should be deducted from criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2171, May 10, 2007). Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the amount of entertainment proceeds generated in the “D” Gameland is KRW 2,469,000 (the investigation record 449 pages), and the expenses incurred in the labor cost or the rent for the game machine, etc. shall be the expenses incurred in obtaining the business profit of the game of this case. Thus, in calculating the amount of additional collection of criminal proceeds of this case, the expenses such as labor cost or the fee for the game machine shall not be deducted from the amount of entertainment proceeds of this case.

In addition, according to the same evidence, the defendant around February 2020.