1. Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C regarding Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B and C’s punishment (Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months, and collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and 120 hours of community service) against the Defendant E of the public prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio decision (Defendant C)

A. Whether the subject of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, and the recognition of the amount of collection is not related to the facts constituting the elements of crime, so strict certification is not necessary, but also recognized based on evidence, and if it is impossible to specify the proceeds of crime subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not be collected.

Meanwhile, since the purpose of collection of the profits derived from a criminal act of violation of Article 44(1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act is to deprive the illegal profits and prevent them from holding them, where several persons jointly gain profits from the illegal game room business, the amount of money distributed, that is, the profit actually accrued, shall be collected individually, and even if the expenses paid by the criminal to obtain criminal profits have been disbursed from the criminal proceeds, it is merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds, and thus, it is not a means of deducting the criminal proceeds to be collected from the criminal proceeds to be collected.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708 Decided July 10, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1859 Decided April 11, 2013). Meanwhile, if there are parts already seized by an investigative agency among criminal proceeds and confiscated, such parts should be deducted from the calculation of the amount of additional collection.

B. In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on Defendant E’s statement (as to the criminal facts of violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry from around September 2013 to March 19, 2014, presumed the daily average sales of N Gamesland as KRW 3 million and presumed the amount to be collected from Defendant C to be collected additionally.