beta
Text
The judgment below
The portion of the penalty collection shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the District Court.
(q) the remainder;
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. While examining the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds in light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a joint principal offender in the crime of violating the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds
2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, an appeal is permitted only for a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been pronounced. As such, in the instant case where the Defendant was sentenced to more minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. As to collection
A. Property acquired by a person subject to punishment under Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the National Sports Promotion Act through similar acts is subject to collection under Article 51 (1) and Article 51 (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act, and the above collection aims to deprive him/her of unlawful profits and prevent him/her from holding it. Thus, in cases where he/she gains profits through similar acts in common, the amount of money distributed, i.e., the profit actually accrued shall be collected individually.
Meanwhile, the cost spent by an offender to obtain criminal proceeds is nothing more than a method of consuming criminal proceeds, even if it was spent from criminal proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008; 2015Do3351, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, in cases where the principal offender who committed similar acts under the National Sports Promotion Act pays wages to employees who are co-offenders, it shall be paid as part of the distribution of criminal proceeds.