The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by one year and six months.

Samsung Tallon, seized Samsung Doll s7.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The evidence by which the Defendant, misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, can find out the proceeds of the crime in the instant case, is limited to the statement at the police and the prosecution of the Defendant, and even according to the statement of the Defendant, the proceeds of the crime in the instant case cannot be specified.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in collecting 300 million won, which is the minimum amount, on the premise that the criminal proceeds of the defendant are KRW 300 million or KRW 400 million, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection, etc., are not related to the facts constituting the elements of crime, and therefore, it is not necessary to prove strict proof, but also requires proof based on evidence. If it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not be additionally collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). Where several persons conspired to open gambling and gain profits, a collection may not be made against a defendant who has no substantial benefit.

In cases where an Internet gambling site operator in collusion with the developer of the gambling program, the franchise store operator, etc. operates a general game hall by providing the game users with the Internet gambling program, and receives part of money in the name of the user, such as money exchange commission and durging expenses paid by the user from the franchise store, the amount of additional collection shall be determined on the basis of the profit actually reverted to the operator of the above site (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6019, Oct. 12, 2007, etc.). In light of this legal principle, this case is deemed to be related to this case.

Even based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the criminal proceeds acquired by the Defendant from the instant crime cannot be specified.

Defendant on December 29, 2016 and January 2017.