A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (as to Defendant A’s additional collection) Defendant A et al. provided normal game water in operating the game of this case, only illegally exchanged act while providing normal game water.

In such cases, all of the revenues of the above game hall can not be considered as criminal proceeds, and only 10% exchange fees can be collected as criminal proceeds.

In addition, the amount of one prosecutor's surcharge calculation is not based on objective evidence, but based on the statements of the I who is an accomplice, and thus criminal proceeds have been identified.

Therefore, it should be deemed impossible to issue an order of collection.

On March 8, 2016, cash 2,499,000, confiscated by the police at the time of the crackdown on the game of this case, can be confiscated as a revenue to be paid to Defendant A. As such, it should be deducted from the amount of additional collection for Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that ordered the Defendant A to collect the net income amounting to KRW 48 million due to the business of the game of this case for the game of this case.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is so unfair as to be too unreasonable as to each of the following: (a) 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment; and (b) 48 million won of a surcharge; (c) 1 year of imprisonment; and (d) Defendant C: 8 months of imprisonment).

2. Determination:

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, (1) whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection is not related to the constituent elements of a crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove it by evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the profits earned by Defendant A in the course of operating the game of this case are at least KRW 7.5 million per month between October and November of the same year between February 2015 and March 1, 2015, and that the profits earned in the course of operating the game of this case are at least KRW 1,1250,000 per month between December 1, 2015 and February 2016. According to the above acknowledged facts, Defendant A was acknowledged.