The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is to be collected from the Defendant, the lower court, which did not sentence the penalty of KRW 17.4 million, erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The property acquired by a person subject to punishment pursuant to Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the National Sports Promotion Act through similar acts is subject to collection under Article 51 (1) and (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act, and the above collection aims to deprive him/her of unlawful profits and prevent him/her from holding it. Thus, in cases where he/she gains profits through similar acts in common, the amount of money distributed, i.e., the profit actually accrued, should be collected individually.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as the cost spent by an offender to obtain criminal proceeds was merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds even if it was spent from criminal proceeds, it does not constitute a deduction from criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008; 2015Do3351, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, in cases where the principal offender who committed similar acts under the National Sports Promotion Act pays wages to an employee who is an accomplice, if it can be deemed that it was paid as part of distributing criminal proceeds, an amount equivalent to the amount of wages that he/she received from an employee who is an accomplice may be collected as a penalty pursuant to Article 51(1) and (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act.

On the other hand, if the principal offender paid wages to employees who are co-offenders as part of the cost expenditure in order to obtain criminal proceeds, collection of additional charges under the above provision against employees who are co-offenders is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6163, Jul. 11, 2018). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant, under employment of D, registered the games on the sports Saturdays site.