The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor for A and two years, six months, and one year, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A (1) was actually involved in the operation of the instant gambling site only until April 2016, Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”). As such, Defendant A’s additional collection should be calculated on the basis of the benefits received by Defendant A prior to April 2016 and the benefits paid to employees.

In addition, since Defendant B and C are in the position of joint manager with Defendant A, they should distribute the amount of additional collection for employee's benefits according to their respective profit distribution ratio.

In addition, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2) The benefits that Defendant B, C, and C received from Defendant A while participating in the operation of the instant gambling site should be excluded from each additional collection charge against Defendant B and C.

In addition, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (as to Defendant A)’s sentence pronounced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

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 a similar act jointly with several persons, 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, if the principal offender who committed similar acts under the National Sports Promotion Act pays wages to an employee who is an accomplice, the national sports promotion act is deemed to have been paid as a part of distributing criminal proceeds if it is possible to deem that it was paid as a part of distributing national sports proceeds.