The judgment below

Among them, the part of additional collection against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 58,800,000 won shall be collected from A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. (2) The criminal proceeds subject to additional collection under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment refers to the proceeds actually accrued.

Therefore, even though criminal proceeds subject to additional collection are limited to 295,485 won (=4,615,078,256 won - 4,614,770,771 won), the lower court erred in collecting 73.8 million won from the Defendant solely based on the Defendant’s statement.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is too unfeasible and unfair. 2) The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants constitutes the criminal proceeds of the instant criminal act, which is the expenses paid by Defendant A in order to obtain criminal proceeds, and constitutes the criminal proceeds of the instant criminal act. The amount of KRW 4 million on the charge of erroneous collection, misunderstanding of legal principles, KRW 12 million on the cost of creating a website, KRW 30 million on the cost of purchasing a computer, KRW 6.6 million on the cost of server, KRW 51 million on the cost of purchasing a borrowed account, KRW 9 million on the cost of purchasing a borrowed account, KRW 9 million on the monthly income, and KRW 119.8 million on the cost of obtaining criminal proceeds.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in collecting only KRW 4 million, KRW 12 million, and KRW 36 million, which are the total of KRW 46 million, from the defendant, after deducting KRW 46 million from the defendant.

2. Determination

A. As to the issue of unfair sentencing, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) The lower court: (a) the social harm caused by illegal sports gambling is significant; (b) Defendant A led the instant crime as an operator; (c) falls under the same repeated offense; and (d) Defendant B has the power to be punished by a fine for the same kind of crime; and (b) the Defendants are in profoundly contradictory to each other; and (c) the Defendants are the Defendants.