The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. After finding the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to two years and four months of imprisonment and additional collection KRW 1447 million.

Accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing, and the trial prior to the return of the original judgment accepted the misapprehension of legal principles as to part of the amount of additional collection and unfair sentencing, and reversed the judgment of the court below and sentenced the defendant to KRW 1.6 months and additional collection KRW 1437 million.

B. The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court prior to remanding the case on the grounds of misunderstanding the legal principles on the establishment of joint principal offenders and the collection of additional charges, and the Supreme Court rejected the misapprehension of the legal principles on the establishment of joint principal offenders and the unfair argument on sentencing, and subsequently, with respect to the allegation of misunderstanding the legal principles on additional collection, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, even though it is difficult to deem that the Defendant received benefits of KRW 143.7 million during the period of crime and received benefits from crime from D, etc. during the principal offender, etc., thereby making it difficult to view it as having been distributed, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection.” The part of the judgment of the court prior

(c)

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the collection of penalty.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is merely an employee employed by D, etc. and received benefits, and the Defendant’s paid benefits are merely a method of consuming the benefits acquired by committing a crime of gambling site operation, and thus, it cannot be collected from the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below ordering collection of 140 million won against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

(a) Property acquired by a person subject to punishment pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 47 of the National Sports Promotion Act through similar acts shall be the national sports promotion;