The judgment below

Among them, the part of additional collection against the defendant shall be reversed.

4,032,258 won shall be collected from the defendant.

The lower court, based on the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the sentencing), and misunderstanding of the legal principles, operated an illegal gambling set in the list of crimes in which the Defendant, etc. received total of KRW 9,573 times, total of KRW 1,274,301,930 from members and paid dividends depending on their failure to pay dividends.

Although it is recognized, 65 times, 90 million won among them should be excluded because they are overlapping.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s imposition of KRW 90 million against the Defendant is excessively calculated, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to calculation of criminal proceeds and reversion of criminal proceeds.

Defendant

The total amount of the profits earned by the accomplices is 90 million won. If the court below combines the defendant's additional collection charge of KRW 90 million, the amount of KRW 90 million additional collection charge of the accomplice B, and KRW 10.4 million of the additional collection charge of the accomplice C, the total amount of profits exceeds KRW 90 million.

Since U, as well as the accomplice who is the co-defendant of the court below, took part in the crime equally with the defendant, an additional collection charge should be deducted, and the amount of KRW 40 million actually earned by the defendant should be recognized.

The sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable if it takes into account the circumstances that the defendant did not lead the criminal act but committed equally with U.S. by sharing the sentence with his accomplice.

On October 5, 2016, according to the evidence of the court below, the defendant led to the confession of the crime on the date of the first trial of the court below, which held that the investigation agency seized the main body, passbook, etc. used for the crime to seize the office located in Htel 1, 1210, and the office located in Htel 1,210, and based on this, it appears that the investigation agency prepared a list of crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The list of crimes is divided into the date and time of transaction, and each deposit owner, and the defendant or accomplice.