The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the penalty of 8 months, 1,242,00 won may be collected in addition to 1,242,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to strict proof as it is not related to the requirement of crime composition, but also requires proof as well. If it is impossible to specify criminal proceeds subject to confiscation, it shall not be collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18972, Apr. 7, 2017). Property arising from the criminal act in violation of Article 30(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on Regulation of Speculative Acts”) is subject to additional collection pursuant to Articles 2 subparag. 1 subparag. 7, 8, and 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds; where several persons jointly engage in speculative acts and gain profits from their speculative activities, the amount of money distributed should be collected individually from 00, i.e., the amount of money distributed to them; where the game users receive profits from their speculative acts, the amount of money remaining after the Defendant exchanged from 16.16% of the sales amount of the game to 2016.

(c)

However, we cannot accept this part of the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant received money from customers and charged 1 points per 5,000 won to the game machine, and the number of customers appearing on the game machine screen.