The judgment below

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

Defendant

A KRW 20,360,00, Defendant.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. The lower court’s additional collection charge against the Defendants (Defendant A: KRW 30,00,00, KRW 9,483,870, KRW 18,258,064) is unreasonable since it is more excessive than the criminal proceeds acquired by the Defendants.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: 4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 4 months of imprisonment, 4 months of imprisonment, 4 months of suspended execution, 1 year of suspended execution, 1 year of protection observation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the additional collection charge

A. The crime under Article 47 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds is subject to collection under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Criminal Proceeds. The purpose of collection under each of the above provisions is to deprive the criminal of unlawful profits and prevent him/her from holding it. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the scope of collection is limited to the actual acquired profits. However, since the expenses incurred by the criminal in the course of committing a criminal act are not only a method to consume the profits gained from the criminal act or to justify his/her act, it is not necessary to deduct it from the amount of collection.

On the other hand, the issue of whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection is not related to the element of crime, and there is no need for strict proof, but also, if it is acknowledged by evidence, and if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not be collected (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do11789, Feb. 12, 2009; 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014, etc.). (b) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the above defendant operated the news report from January 2, 2016 to May 13, 2017, operated it on the ordinary day except for weekend and holiday, and managed women to the extent of seven in the process.