The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. If the defendant deducts the cost, etc. paid by the defendant for the operation of the game room, the actual profit earned from the game room as stated in Paragraph (1) of the crime of the original judgment (hereinafter the above game room is referred to as "first game room" and Paragraph (2) of the crime of the original judgment is the amount of KRW 2 million.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below ordering the Defendant to collect a total of KRW 5.3 million (= KRW 5 million for the first game room 2.3 million) from the Defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two months of imprisonment and 5.3 million won of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of collection under the provisions of Articles 8 through 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, which are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 44(3) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) is to deprive a person of unlawful profits and prevent him/her from holding it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007). In cases where several persons jointly obtain profits from a crime under any subparagraph of Article 44(1) of the Game Industry Act, only the amount distributed, i.e., the amount distributed, shall be individually confiscated and collected, and where it is impossible to determine the distributed amount, the amount divided shall be confiscated and collected equally.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do3868 Decided July 10, 2008, 2009Do13912 Decided January 28, 2010, etc.). Meanwhile, in order to obtain criminal proceeds, expenses spent by a criminal to obtain criminal proceeds are not deductible from criminal proceeds, unless they are used as a means of consuming criminal proceeds.

(2) As to the instant case, the health unit, the lower court’s duly adopted and examined evidence. (3) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence.