The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

15,378,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

3.2

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the amount of additional collection 1) Since the period during which a defendant who misleads the misunderstanding of the facts obtains profits by operating a gambling site is 15 months in total, criminal proceeds acquired by the defendant are KRW 150 million in total per month.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the period of acquisition of criminal proceeds is 16 months and the total amount of 160 million won is calculated.

2) Although the judgment of the court below is unlawful since it did not deduct 6210,000 won in the amount of the confiscated cash from the amount of the penalty, even though it is necessary to impose the penalty only for the remainder of the criminal proceeds acquired by the misunderstanding of the legal principles, excluding the already confiscated

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the assertion on the portion of additional collection is not required to require strict certification (Supreme Court Decision 91Do3346 Decided June 22, 1993). According to the records, the Defendant operated a gambling site “from the end of 2014” or “from the end of December 2014” or “from the point of December 2014.”

As to the scale of pure profit, it is thought that it will be converted into 16 months from every 10 million won to 15 million won.

“The statement was made”.

Based on each of the above statements, the lower court calculated the period for which the Defendant acquired criminal proceeds as 16 months, and calculated the amount of total of KRW 160 million per month, by adding the acquired criminal proceeds to KRW 10 million per month.

Since the court below’s aforementioned calculation of criminal proceeds is just and acceptable, this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) Article 10(1) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds alleged by misunderstanding of the legal principles provides that “The property to be forfeited pursuant to Article 8(1) cannot be forfeited or the nature of the property, the situation of its use, whether a person other than the criminal has the right to such property, and other matters.