The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for ten months, for each of the defendants B.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios and unreasonable sentencing)

A. Although the remuneration received by the Defendants asserting the misapprehension of the legal principles in return for the instant crime is paid in the monthly salary, it shall not only fall under “property acquired through similar acts” as provided by Article 51(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act, but also constitute criminal proceeds under Articles 10(1) and 8(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment”), and thus, it shall be additionally collected against Defendant A, KRW 154 million, and KRW 1304 million against Defendant B.

However, the court below did not collect the above amount corresponding to each of the above benefits from the defendants, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, community service, 240 hours of probation, Defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, probation, and 240 hours of community service) is deemed to be too unreasonable and unfair

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below regarding the assertion of legal principles 1) requested that Defendant A collect 150,440 million won from Defendant B and 130,400 million won from Defendant B at the court below. The court below decided that the Defendants were the head of the operating team or the operating team of the instant illegal gambling site, and the Defendants were merely the employees who received monthly pay of KRW 150-3,500,000 from the operator of the instant illegal gambling site, and there is no evidence to support that the Defendants received the distribution of profits from the operation of the instant illegal gambling site other than the above monthly pay, and that the Defendants did not receive additional collection from the Defendants on the ground that the part received by the Defendants was sufficient and that it cannot be deemed that they were criminal proceeds to be collected from the Defendants.