The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is 117,60,000 won, and only 25,800,000 won was collected by the Defendant for the crime of this case, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to additional collection, and further, of the judgment below (one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of community service order, confiscation, additional collection, 25,80,00 won) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the prosecutor asserts that the defendant prepared 20,000 won per game in the instant gambling place as operating expenses, and that the total number of daily games per day in the instant gambling place is 280, and that the actual business day in the instant gambling place is 21,000, the defendant's total profits are 117,60,000 won (20,000 won x 280 x 21 days).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., ① there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the money received as operating expenses for one game in the instant gambling place is KRW 20,000, and rather, the Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is difficult to accept in light of the following: F, E, and L, etc., all of which were customers of the instant gambling place, made a statement to the effect that the maximum operating expenses per one game are KRW 20,000; ② the number of games per day of the instant gambling place is 280,000,000 merely based on the Defendant’s mere statement, which is the total number of games per day of the instant gambling place; ③ there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant actually operated the instant gambling place is 21 days.

B. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant appears to recognize and reflect his mistake on the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) the period of the instant crime remains relatively short; (c) the Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (d) and all matters concerning the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of the instant case, the sentence of the lower judgment is adequate.