The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and by a fine not exceeding fifteen thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s additional collection against the Defendant is seeking for criminal proceeds related to the criminal acts under Article 3 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment pursuant to Article 8(1)3 of the same Act (hereinafter “Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act”) and does not seek for property damaged by embezzlement. As such, the crime of violation of Article 3 of the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act does not constitute a crime related to property under Article 8(3) of the same Act, and thus, the Defendant’s property subject to additional collection does not constitute property subject to forfeiture or additional collection under Articles 8(3) and 10(2) of the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, thereby dismissing additional collection.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment, three-year community service hours, 160 hours) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, KRW 352,93,166 of the instant damages amounted to the crime of embezzlement and at the same time constitutes criminal proceeds related to the crime under Article 3(1)1 of the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act. However, in light of the literal interpretation of Article 8(1) and (3) of the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act, even if criminal proceeds pertaining to the crime under Article 3(1)1 of the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act, insofar as such proceeds constitute property acquired from the injured person by the criminal act corresponding to property or property acquired by the possession or disposal of such property, it is reasonable to deem that the crime proceeds constitute property that is prohibited from confiscation or collection under Articles 8(3) and 10(2) of the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act.

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

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is the first offender who divided his mistake, the amount of KRW 290 million shall be paid to the victim D Distribution Center, and the victim shall be liable for civil liability.