The judgment below

Among them, each part of the additional collection against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A 283,160,000 won, Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that collected KRW 332,00,000 from Defendant A and B, respectively, and KRW 250,000 from Defendant C, respectively, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (one year and six months of each imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Additional collection under Article 51(3) of the National Sports Promotion Act is intended to eradicate similar acts in violation of Article 47 subparag. 2 of the same Act, thereby depriving him of unlawful profits from such act and preventing him/her from holding it. Thus, in cases where he/she gains profits from a similar act jointly, only the amount distributed, i.e., the profit actually accrued, should be collected separately, and where the amount distributed cannot be determined, the amount distributed should be collected equally.

On the other hand, in order to obtain criminal proceeds in collecting criminal proceeds, the expenses paid by the offender have been disbursed from criminal proceeds.

Even if it is merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds, it does not mean that it should be deducted from criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008; 2015Do3351, Jul. 23, 2015). Whether it is subject to confiscation or collection, or whether it is subject to confiscation or collection, or the amount of additional collection is not related to the elements of crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove it by evidence. However, if it is not possible to specify criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall be recognized by evidence. (See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008). According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, K shall not collect servers at nearby and neighboring places of China for the sake of Chinese san Industrial Complex.