All appeals filed against the Defendants and the Prosecutor A are dismissed.

The judgment below

Application of Statutes

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) Defendant B (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles)’s additional collection charges (57.2 million won) imposed by the court below on Defendant B are excessively unreasonable.2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, three years of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of suspended execution, etc., Defendant C: five months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below to Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) where several persons jointly gain profits from a similar horse racing business, only the amount distributed should be confiscated and collected respectively; and (b) where the allocated amount cannot be determined, the amount divided equally should be confiscated and collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7483, Oct. 23, 2008). Meanwhile, in order to obtain criminal proceeds, the cost spent by the offender was only a method of consuming criminal proceeds, even if it was disbursed from criminal proceeds, it does not constitute a deduction from criminal proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008); (c) where the principal offender paid benefits to employees who are co-offenders, the amount paid from the employee who is co-offenders of the Korean Racing Association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1681, Jun. 26, 2008).