The judgment below

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

10,728,00 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The daily average criminal proceeds constitute KRW 10,000,000,000, if a game room operated by the Defendant by mistake of fact (hereinafter “the game room in this case”) is based on the one week’s place of business of the game room operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “the game room in this case”). According to the cell phones status details used by the Defendant, since the period of business of the game room in this case was 58 days in total from June 3, 2017 to July 30, 2017, the Defendant collected 58 million (i.e., average daily criminal proceeds x 1 million x 58 days), the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to the calculation of additional collection charges.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service order 120 hours, confiscation, and additional collection of KRW 7510,00) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts (in calculation of a surcharge), whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or recognition of the amount of collection, etc., are not related to the elements of crime, and therefore strict proof is not necessary. However, it is also acknowledged based on evidence. If it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the amount that can be collected from the defendant is KRW 10,728,00,00, and the prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out is justified within the scope of recognition, and the remainder is not justified.

① From June 3, 2017 to July 30, 2017, the Defendant recognized the fact that the game of this case was operated by the game of this case (Evidence No. 207 pages). As to the profits accrued while operating the game of this case, “the game of this case shall not be operated by the game of this case, and shall be deemed to have been overstrupted by the game of this case. The date is time when the enemy is.