The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants on the additional collection is reversed.

Defendant

A 54 million won, Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendants, by misapprehending the legal principles as to the amount of collection, received from F, etc. as to the operation of the gambling site of this case, should be excluded from the amount of collection because it constitutes not the distribution of criminal proceeds, the lower court’s judgment ordering the collection of collection including all of them is erroneous in the misapprehension

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended sentence, two years of additional collection, 54 million won, 8 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 41 million won additional collection, 38 million won, 38 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 38 million won additional collection, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 37 million won additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the principal offender who committed similar acts under the National Sports Promotion Act’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the amount of additional collection pays the benefits to an employee who is an accomplice, if it can be deemed that such benefits were paid as part of the distribution of criminal proceeds, the amount equivalent to the benefits that he received from the principal offender may be additionally collected from the employee who is an accomplice pursuant to Article 51(

On the other hand, if the principal offender paid wages to an employee who is an accomplice as part of the expenditure of expenses in order to obtain criminal proceeds simply, the collection of additional charges under the above provision against an employee who is an accomplice cannot be allowed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6163 Decided July 11, 2018). The lower court collected the amount that the Defendants received in relation to the instant gambling site from the Defendants pursuant to Article 51(1) and (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants were in a key position in the criminal organization to the extent that they received criminal proceeds in relation to the gambling site of this case.

It is difficult to view that the Defendants were in charge of or was in charge of tracking, and the amount received by the Defendants.