The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine) The Defendant was already punished as an aiding and abetting a crime related to the gambling site operated by I and K (hereinafter “I”) as the source of criminal proceeds, and Article 4 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds is a provision punishing only a person who receives criminal proceeds, and thus, the provision of the general provisions of the Criminal Act on accomplices cannot be applied to the opposite crime. Thus, the Defendant’s act related to the above facts charged cannot be punished.

B) Since the criminal facts of aiding and abetting the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act and the facts charged of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (related to similar acts) are identical to those of aiding and abetting the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act, the res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment also affects the above part of the facts charged.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence to the lower court is too minor.

The Defendant received KRW 30 million in return for publicity of the gambling site to K. Since the above money was criminal proceeds due to the opening of gambling sites, such as I, and the Defendant was aware of it, it is necessary to collect it from the Defendant in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the provision of the general provision of the Criminal Act on accomplices cannot be applied to an opposite offender who requires the existence of an act in favor of two or more persons in contravention of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6287, Oct. 13, 201). However, in the case of a crime of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds Caused by N’s Number of Criminal Proceeds, a opposite offender may be deemed to be an I et al., rather than the Defendant. However, he/she took part in an opposite offender beyond his/her direct hostile.