The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months and fine of 10,000,000 won, and Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of 6 months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor’s defendants were found to have been engaged in illegal profits due to the crime of this case, and thus, they should be sentenced to the additional collection as to the defendants.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two months of imprisonment, five million won of fine, one million won of social service, and one hundred and sixty hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 56 of the Korean Racing Association Act provides, “The property referred to in Articles 50, 53 through 55 and subparagraph 3 of Article 59 shall be confiscated: Provided, That if it is impossible to confiscate any property or acquiring any pecuniary benefit, the equivalent value thereof shall be collected)” to be confiscated or additionally collected as necessary for the property and pecuniary benefit acquired through a similar horse racing.

However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statement of Defendant A in this court, Defendant A can recognize the fact that Defendant A obtained property benefits of KRW 22,50,000 from the crime of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below which did not impose additional collection of the above criminal proceeds on Defendant A is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on necessary additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(b) Things subject to confiscation shall be those which were provided or intended to be provided for criminal conduct (Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act), and those which are not owned by a person other than the criminal;

(Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act. However, according to the records of this case, no evidence exists to prove that the above passbook was owned by the Defendants as a deposit passbook in the name of I, L, M, and N other than the Defendants’ name, and there is no evidence to prove that the above passbook was provided or attempted to be provided for the crime of this case as to subparagraphs 17 and 20 of the above evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced each of the above confiscated articles is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation.