All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendants had operated the game of this case by mistake of facts and acquired business profit equivalent to KRW 21 million, the Defendants should additionally collect KRW 10.5 million from each of the Defendants.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment for eight months, suspension of execution of two years, forfeiture of 1 through 7, Defendant B: imprisonment for eight months, suspension of execution of two years, probation, etc.) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether a judgment of mistake of facts is subject to confiscation or additional collection, or recognition of additional collection amount, etc., are not related to the facts constituting the crime, and therefore strict proof is not necessary, but also, it is reasonable to acknowledge it by evidence. If it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or additional collection, it shall not be collected.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9858 Decided April 7, 2006, etc.). In addition, Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act provides that Article 44(1) of the same Act provides that game products owned or occupied by a person falling under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article, profits generated by such criminal act (hereinafter “criminal gains”) and property derived from criminal gains shall be confiscated, and if it is impossible to confiscate them, the value thereof shall be additionally collected, and Article 4(3) of the same Act provides that the provisions of Articles 8 through 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment shall apply mutatis mutandis to the matters related to the confiscation or collection of criminal gains and property derived from criminal proceeds as provided in paragraph (2)

However, since the collection of penalty under Article 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment is discretionary, whether it is necessary to collect the penalty even if it meets the requirements for the collection of penalty is left to the discretion of the court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007; 2010Do6148, Jul. 22, 2010). In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not sentence the Defendants to a penalty surcharge.