All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant B shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor (Defendant A) stated to the effect that “In the absence of cash, the son would pay money from the customer with the Z account and charge the Z account.” Since the amount deposited in the Z account in the Defendant’s name is KRW 2,694,00,000,000, the remaining KRW 1,949,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Act”).

(2) Although the lower court has to impose an additional collection under Article 44(1), it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection and by failing to impose an additional collection on the remaining criminal proceeds, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant A is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principles of Defendant A1’s sentence of confiscation or collection under Article 44(2) of the Game Act, the subject matter is limited to the profits generated from criminal acts and the property derived from such criminal proceeds. Thus, if the profits generated from such criminal acts or the property generated from such criminal proceeds are not the property, etc. generated from such criminal acts, it shall not be forfeited or collected pursuant to the above provision, and even in cases where the profits generated from such criminal acts or from other criminal acts are mixed with the profits generated from such criminal acts as stipulated in Article 44(1) of the Game Act and the profits generated from such other criminal acts, even in cases where the profits generated from such criminal acts cannot be specified in Article 44(2) of the Game Act or the property generated from such criminal proceeds, it shall be deemed that the equivalent value cannot be forfeited or collected pursuant to the above provision.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below properly explained.