Defendant

B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles on additional collection has disbursed KRW 1,30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 received in return for tracking the location of the victim from the Defendant A in the course of committing the crime. Thus, even though the amount equivalent to the above expenses should be deducted from the amount of additional collection of the Defendant, the court below ordered the full amount of KRW 2,30,000 to the amount of additional collection of the Defendant, erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of calculating the amount of additional collection.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (the Defendant A: imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the Defendant B: fine of five million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where money and valuables are acquired through a crime of determining the misapprehension of the legal principle as to Defendant B’s assertion, the expenses incurred in the course of the crime are merely incidental expenses disbursed to acquire the money and valuables, and the money and valuables acquired through the crime are themselves the money and valuables acquired through the crime. Therefore, when calculating the money to be collected, the above expenses shall not be deducted from the value of the money and valuables.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant was requested to track the location of the victim from the upper Defendant A and received KRW 2,300,000 in return for such request. Thus, even if the Defendant spent KRW 1,30,00 in the course of illegally tracking the location of the victim, the subject of additional collection for confiscation is 2,30,000 won acquired by the Defendant in return for the instant crime, and the expenses incurred in the course of the instant crime should not be deducted.

Therefore, the court below is just to order the defendant to collect the above 2.3 million won, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The first instance trial on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant B and the prosecutor.