The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

10 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

. The defendant-appellant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which collected 439.6 million won from the defendant by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The purpose of collection under Article 51(3) of the National Sports Promotion Act is to deprive the public of unlawful benefits arising from the act in order to eradicate similar acts in violation of Article 47(2) of the same Act and prevent the public from retaining them. Thus, in a case where profits have been gained through a similar act jointly by several persons, only the amount distributed, i.e., the profit actually accrued, should be collected individually, and in a case where the amount distributed cannot be determined, the amount distributed should be collected equally.

On the other hand, in order to obtain criminal proceeds in collecting criminal proceeds, the expenses paid by the offender have been disbursed from criminal proceeds.

Even if it is merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds, it does not mean that it should be deducted from criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008; 2015Do3351, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the benefits that an accomplice received from the principal offender merely consumes criminal proceeds, and thus, it cannot be collected separately from an accomplice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do17936, Dec. 22, 2017). Whether a confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or the amount of collection is not related to the requirement of crime, and it is not necessary to prove it based on evidence, but where it is not possible to specify criminal proceeds subject to such collection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do3292, Jun. 26, 2008).