All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. Defendant E 1) In fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles that Defendant received “cash” (Evidence Nos. 7 through 11) by operating a job placement office, not only does the content stated in the facts charged but also does not fall under confiscation because the Defendant was in a possession of the assistance money received by the Defendant on the face of the front person’s wall. In addition, S3 device (AU, No. 12) is owned by the head of the Defendant, and S3 device (AV, No. 13) is owned by the Defendant on the galthal galthal galthalthal galthalthal galthal galths (AV, No. 13) was used personally by the Defendant. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that sentenced forfeiture of the seized evidence Nos. 7 through 13 is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on Defendant E (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”)’s assertion of confiscation 7 through 11 (cash, check) regarding the assertion of confiscation 1) as to the allegation of confiscation, the Health Center, and the Defendant stated to the effect that “The cash and check confiscated in the police investigation process is a profit obtained by the news release business.” The above cash and check constitute an object acquired through the Defendant’s violation of the Employment Security Act and the crime of interference with business, and thus are subject to confiscation pursuant to Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act. According to the health stand and the record, Z operating a singing practice room of “A” and G, which is its wife, was provided by the Defendant with female visitors via the cell phone (Evidence 280, 304, and 748 pages). The above cash and check constitute an object acquired through the Defendant’s violation of the Employment Security Act and the crime of interference with business.