The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, and by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The lower court’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine cannot be subject to confiscation, as it is not related to money exchange activities.

With respect to the amount of additional collection, there is no objective basis on the fact that the average amount of KRW 12 million per day was exchanged, and even if the average amount of KRW 12 million per day is recognized, the "profit derived from money exchange" to be collected as additional collection is the remainder after the amount of additional collection imposed by the court below is 120 million won, including rent, personnel expenses, and depreciation of machinery, and thus all of the judgment below that collected additional collection is unjust.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an additional collection of KRW 121,200,00) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s sentence (4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the first instance trial, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to an indictment with respect to “from March 4, 2015 to “from February 3, 2015,” and “Defendant B and C” with “from March 4, 2015 to June 29, 2015)” with respect to “Defendant B (from March 4, 2015 to June 29, 2015)” and “C (from February 3, 2015 to June 29, 2015)” with respect to each of the facts charged. This Court permitted this.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained as the subject of the judgment is changed.

However, Defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. In light of the following facts acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the determination of Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (including ex officio determination on the part of confiscation) 1) as to the calculation of the amount of additional collection, the number of business days of Defendant A from March 4, 201 to June 29, 201 (118 days from March 4, 2015 to June 29, 2015) and June 10, 2015.