beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s sentence (a year and six months of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 773,012,330) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to additional collection, since the defendant calculated the standard of additional collection by adding up the amount of acquisition of crime after withdrawal to the amount of acquisition of crime even though the defendant retired while committing the crime, and additionally collected the amount equally from the defendant and the defendant A.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 773,012,330) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, confiscation and collection of criminal proceeds, etc. are aimed at depriving of unlawful profits and preventing them from holding them. Thus, in cases where several persons jointly commit a crime and gain profits therefrom, each person shall individually confiscate and collect the amount distributed, namely, the profit actually accrued, but where it is impossible to determine the amount distributed, the amount equally divided shall be confiscated and collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13999, Jan. 10, 2013). Meanwhile, in cases where money and valuables were acquired through a crime of violation of the law by an attorney-at-law, even if expenses were incurred in the course of the crime, they are merely incidental expenses disbursed to acquire such money and valuables, and thus, the amount to be confiscated should be deducted from the value of the money and valuables already disposed (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do13999, Oct. 24, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do654, Oct. 29, 2008).