All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) In the case of money received by the Defendant in mistake of facts, not only the H site’s maintenance and repair work, but also the cost for the maintenance and repair work of the money-related site (AP) that is not included in the facts charged. The lower court’s judgment erred by misunderstanding of facts by additionally collecting the money that the Defendant received. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million, additional collection of KRW 1,540,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) Since the misapprehension of legal principle cannot be deemed to have received criminal proceeds by manufacturing Korean language caption of the instant video product and receiving its translation fees, it is not subject to collection. Even if the subject of collection is subject to collection, it is in violation of the principle of proportionality as to discretionary collection, so the lower court’s judgment is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 4 million, No. 7, No. 23 million, and the penalty of KRW 23 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of mistake of facts by Defendant B, whether it is subject to confiscation, or whether it is subject to collection, or recognition of collection amount does not require strict proof.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the original court and the party instance in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the amount of the additional collection by the lower court is reasonable, and there is no error by misapprehending the facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant received the benefit from A, and most of the proceeds that A acquired are obtained through a H site (I)’s obscenity posted in the facts charged.

(2) Even if it is based on the work place submitted by the defendant at the trial, the time and period the defendant works on the AP site is extremely part of the time and period.