The judgment below

Among them, each part of the additional collection against the Defendants is reversed.

Each of the Defendants is KRW 158,073,400.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The telephone counselor employed by the Defendants of misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes an accomplice of the instant crime, and the allowances paid to them shall be deducted from the calculation of the additional collection charge against the Defendants.

In addition, since the defendants could not individually calculate the profit actually acquired from the crime of this case, it is necessary to collect the total amount equally from the defendants, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of additional collection.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (one year and six months of imprisonment for the Defendants A, three years of suspended execution, one year of imprisonment for the Defendants B, one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution) are excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion that the allowances paid to telephone counselors should be deducted, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the telephone counselors employed by the defendants explained to the victims according to the terms of the sales scenario, advertisement, and sales guidelines provided by the defendants according to the defendants' instructions and received the allowances according to the sales performance in the situations where the telephone counselors did not know at all about the matters corresponding to the elements of deception against the victims, such as the efficacy, manufacturing process, manufacturing cost, etc. of their goods sold by them. Thus, it cannot be deemed that such telephone counselors had the intent to jointly process the crime of this case or had the intent to assist the defendants to commit the crime of this case. Accordingly, the amount paid by the defendants to telephone counselors as allowances is merely necessary expenses to commit the crime of this case, and it cannot be deducted from the additional collection amount. Thus, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.