The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal 1) The lower judgment, which did not order the Defendant, whose degree of involvement in the instant crime was not simply employed, to collect the penalty on additional collection, is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year, two years of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of service) is too unreasonable.

B. The reasoning of the lower court’s appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion on collection of additional charges

A. The lower court held that the Defendants were in a key position in a criminal organization to the extent that the Defendants received criminal proceeds in light of the role, period of service, and amount received by the Defendant.

Since it is difficult to see that the Defendants were in charge of tracking or tracking, they did not issue an order of collection for the reason that it is difficult to see that the Defendants received benefits during the period of crime from F, etc., the main offender, etc. to receive criminal proceeds.

B. In a case where the principal offender who committed similar acts under the National Sports Promotion Act in the judgment of the political party pays wages to employees who are co-offenders, if it can be deemed that such wages were paid as part of the distribution of criminal proceeds, the wages or the corresponding amount may be collected from the employees who are co-offenders pursuant to Article 51(1) and (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act. However, if the principal offender merely pays wages to employees who are co-offenders as part of the disbursement of expenses in order to obtain criminal proceeds, the said provision does not allow the collection for employees as co-offenders.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6163, Jul. 11, 2018). However, even if a person falls under the latter and thus is unable to collect benefits according to the National Sports Promotion Act, the amount of benefits received by an employee who is an accomplice constitutes “property acquired as remuneration for criminal acts” under Article 2 Subparag. 2(a) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.