The judgment below

Among the parts of conviction against Defendant A, those against Defendant B and those against Defendant C shall be additionally collected.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A and B against each of the Defendants alleged unfair sentencing (i.e., imprisonment of two years, confiscation, additional collection of 2320 million won, (ii) imprisonment of one year, confiscation, additional collection of 182 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In relation to the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (not guilty part of the reasoning of the judgment below) against Defendant A, the Defendant acquired KRW 180 million out of the deposit amount under the M lease contract in the name of M lease contract for L apartment housing in excess of KRW 34 million which the court below found guilty as criminal proceeds, and acquired KRW 20 million out of the deposit amount under the M lease contract in the name of M lease contract in excess of KRW 65 million which the court below found guilty, and pretended to the fact about the disposition of criminal proceeds as stated in the judgment.

2) The prosecutor alleged misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Defendant C (the portion of collection) in the petition of appeal and the statement of reasons for appeal to the effect that this part of the claim was unfairly asserted in the sentencing, but the content thereof is disputing the illegality of the calculation of the amount of collection, so it is to be determined by the misapprehension of the

Although the defendant acquired 35 million won as illegal profits, the court below held that 15 million won among them was the expense that the defendant paid for the crime, and collected 20 million won as the expense that the defendant sustained, but once acquired as profit from the crime, the full amount should be collected additionally, and part of it was disbursed as the expense thereafter.

Even if this is merely an ex post facto circumstance, the lower court erred by misapprehending the amount of additional collection.

3) Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants alleged unfair sentencing (i.e., imprisonment for a term of two years, confiscation, collection of 232 million won, (ii) imprisonment for a term of one year, confiscation, collection of 180 million won, additional collection of 100 million won, (iii) imprisonment for a term of ten months, suspension of execution for a term of two years, confiscation, additional collection of 20 million won, and community service order of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor makes an unfair sentencing against Defendant C.