All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Although the Prosecutor Defendant obtained a total amount of KRW 33 million through the instant game room business, the lower court erred by failing to impose an additional collection on the Defendant, and the above sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Whether the prosecutor's assertion on collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection, etc. is not related to the facts constituting the elements of crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove strictly, but also should be recognized by evidence. If it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not be collected additionally.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement on the sales amount of KRW 20-500,000 is deemed to have been made by the investigative agency. However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant obtained profits equivalent to the above amount due to the instant crime, even if it is difficult to view that the Defendant obtained profits due to the instant crime, and the amount of such profits is specified.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the court below did not collect criminal proceeds from the defendant, so the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by setting up a game counter in a game room to issue game scores obtained from the game as free vouchers and granting them with cash exchange free vouchers. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed speculative acts.