The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although I actually run the illegal game of this case claiming a misunderstanding of facts and a misapprehension of legal principles, and the defendant was merely a director of a tentatively named branch that lent I the name to I, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the collection of additional charges by deeming the defendant as the actual owner of the business, and by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The main sentence of the lower court on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 2 subparag. 1 [Attachment Table] of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment is to impose penalty on property resulting from the crime of gambling opening under Article 247 of the Criminal Act, which is to deprive of unjust enrichment and not to hold it in accordance with Articles 2 subparag. 1, 8, and 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. Thus, where several persons conspired to engage in gambling and obtain profits from gambling opening, the collection of penalty shall not be levied on the defendant who has no actual profits.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6019 Decided October 12, 2007). The case returned to the case, and the defendant was actually engaged in the business of operating the illegal game of this case when the defendant was in the trial of the party, and the prosecutor confirmed that I actually operated the illegal game of this case as a result of investigation based on the defendant's statement, and changed the indictment to be that it was only the head of the defendant's branch office. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the defendant, who was merely the head of the branch office of the illegal game of this case, actually acquired operating profit of 3.5 million won through the operation of the illegal game of this case, is therefore justified.

B. Prior to the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the first charge that “the Defendant provided unlawful game products to use and exchanged them by himself” was examined ex officio prior to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and that “the Defendant provided unlawful game products to use and exchanged them.”