The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A, C, E, F, and G Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, Defendant B, D, H, I, and J respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant B, D, H, I, and J Defendants conducted the business of withdrawing money in accordance with the order of the principal offender and received money as a monthly salary for that business, the court below ordered the collection of additional money under the Act on the Promotion of National Sports, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Defendant C, E, F, and G Defendants received money as monthly salary during the period of working as an employee of the “L” site, not subject to additional collection under the National Sports Promotion Act, and the Defendants’ cash withdrawal amount from the amount of cash withdrawal from the accounts recognized as profits accrued during the period of operating the “N” site to the above accounts should be deducted from the total amount of KRW 766,449,000, which the Defendants directly deposited into the above accounts, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(c)

The defendants and the prosecutor (unfair sentencing)'s each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too heavy or unhurd.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the principal offender who committed a similar act under the National Sports Promotion Act (other than Defendant K) pays wages to an employee who is an accomplice, as a part of the distribution of criminal proceeds, as to the amount equivalent to the amount received as a monthly salary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 1, 201); if it can be deemed that the amount was paid as part of the distribution of criminal proceeds, the amount equivalent to the wages that he received from an employee who is an accomplice may be additionally collected from the principal offender.

On the other hand, if the principal offender paid wages to an employee who is an accomplice as part of the expense expenditure in order to obtain criminal proceeds simply, collection of additional charges under the above provision against an employee who is an accomplice is not allowed (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6163 Decided July 11, 2018). However, in the instant case, a prosecutor is not required to collect additional charges against the Defendants.