All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in omitting the judgment of additional collection of KRW 1.5 million from the prosecutor (1).

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In the case of the prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles, the benefits such as allowances that the defendant acquired in this case was distributed at a certain ratio to the amount that the defendant acquired by deceit as a crime of fraud, which is a crime of property, and this constitutes “criminal damage property,” and it is difficult to regard it as subject to additional collection pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment from Crimes (hereinafter “the Act on Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment”), and it is also difficult to view it as falling under “where it is extremely difficult for the victim to recover from damage, such as where the victim cannot exercise his right to claim for return of property or right to claim for damages.”

Even if the subject of collection is subject to collection, since the collection under Article 10 of the Regulation on Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to collect it even if the subject matter meets the requirements of collection is left to the court’s discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451 Decided June 14, 2007), and it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s failure to separately decide on the Defendant’s collection is unlawful beyond the limit of the discretion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the portion of additional collection against the defendant is just and it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as argued by the prosecutor in the judgment below. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor and the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing are examined.