The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

1,400,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Appeal of the defendant and.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (Additional Collection) and KRW 100,000,000 as to the charge No. 1. A, there is no basis for calculation.

2) The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 1.2 million) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the facts constituting a crime of 1.b. misunderstanding the legal principles (Additional Collection), 70,000 won, which the Defendant received from D as the purchase price of phiphones, is the amount calculated by deducting 200,000 won of the Defendant’s existing obligation to D from the purchase price of phiphones, and thus, 90,000 won should be collected. Accordingly, the total amount to be collected shall be 1.4 million won.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the collection portion, the Defendant stated in the prosecution that “the amount to be administered once a philopon” as “the amount to be administered once a philopon,” and that the nationwide average price of a philopon is KRW 100,000,000,000. Therefore, the lower court’s determination that calculated the additional collection charge as to January 1, 200 is justifiable.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, 1) whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to strict certification, or the recognition of the amount of collection does not require strict certification (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9314, Mar. 15, 2007). 2) The Defendant stated at the prosecutor’s office that “at the time was paid KRW 200,000,000 to D due to the damage of KRW 200,00,000” in relation to the purchase-price on September 22, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 295th page of the investigation record), and D also remitted the remainder of KRW 10,000 in the Defendant’s personal debt amount from the police (100,000 won in the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s personal debt amount in September), but there is a difference in the amount with the Defendant’s statement as to the fact that the amount of payment was less due to the existing credit relationship with the Defendant’s account.