A. In contrast to the misapprehension of the legal principle as to collection, the defendant has invested KRW 30 million in the game room of this case, thereby making up only losses for four days. Thus, the defendant recognized the amount of profit earned from the crime of this case as KRW 6 million and the judgment of the court below that collected it as additional collection is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle. Even if the amount of profit earned from the crime of this case is six million won, 3010,000 won among them shall be subject to confiscation and confiscation, and 2.90,000 won shall be subject to additional collection. The judgment of the court below that collected the total amount of KRW

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the collection of criminal proceeds from the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the collection of additional charges, the expenses that an offender spent to obtain criminal proceeds are not to be deducted from the criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7146, Jun. 29, 2006). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, in other words, the defendant is acknowledged from April 3, 2015.

4. Until July (five days), the game room business of this case was operated, and from April 3, 2015

4. Until June 4, 200,000 won per day is an average of 1.5 million won per day (4 days) and 30.1 million won per day (2 million won per day of probation, 1.1 million won per day of enforcement on April 7, 2015) was seized in the course of control on April 7, 2015, the judgment of the court below that determined the above confiscated money as 3 million won and collected 6 million won from the defendant as 6 million won (1.5 million won x 4 days) at the same time as the criminal proceeds acquired by the defendant from the operation of the game room are justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection as claimed by the defendant.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

The lower court determined as follows.