The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The entire sales of the “AP” and the “AS” website operated by the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (related to the amount of additional collection) cannot be deemed to have accrued by spreading obscene materials as described in the instant facts charged. The actual profits accrued between March 2014 and January 29, 2015 from operating each of the above sites are KRW 13,980,860, not KRW 272,59,49,000, not KRW 13,980,860, the additional collection should also be limited to its scope.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the regulation and punishment of concealment of Criminal Proceeds, which constitutes the basis for the calculation of the additionally collected amount, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the additionally collected amount under the Act.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, four years of probation, and two hundred hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the Defendant was detained in the lower court, and thus, the Defendant cannot amend or examine the grounds for appeal without a defense counsel pursuant to Articles 282 and 33(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act by falling under the case requiring attorney-at-law.

Even though the defendant's private defense counsel was absent, the court below did not dismiss the judgment of the court below because the court below, without selecting a national defense counsel, resumed the pleading on the third trial day scheduled to be declared as the date, and subsequently dismissed the pleading through a deliberation on collection of additional dues, and subsequently sentenced the judgment. Thus, the court below's judgment cannot escape from reversal because it clearly proves that the litigation procedure was in violation of the law.

However, the judgment of the court below is based on the above ex officio reversal, but the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles ) The recognition of additional collection of relevant legal principles does not require strict proof, and gains criminal proceeds in addition to additional collection of criminal proceeds.