The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was not the actual owner of the instant entertainment shop, but merely received KRW 100,00 per day as an employee, and did not distribute criminal proceeds to accomplices. However, the lower court’s determination on the amount of additional collection premised on the Defendant’s equal distribution of criminal proceeds with accomplices is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a year and two months of imprisonment, and a fine of KRW 7 million, confiscation, and additional collection of KRW 99 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and examined evidence, namely, ① the Defendant’s statement at an investigative agency, from January 2014 to April 2014, the Defendant agreed to engage in the work with H, J, and J, to the effect that, from May 2014, Defendant, H, I, I, and J are divided by 1/4 each of them (Evidence Records No. 1154). ② The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not work with H, I, and J, and that she was an employee, but the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency was divided into: (i) the Defendant’s operating of the said investigation agency’s profits; and (ii) the Defendant’s statement at the same time, based on the premise that the Defendant’s operating of the said investigation agency was very specific; and (iii) the Defendant’s operating of the said entertainment facility at the same time, and (iv) the Defendant’s operating of the said entertainment facility at this case’s bar No. 120.