The judgment below

Among them, the part of additional collection against the defendant shall be reversed.

30,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection of KRW 11 million) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Whether the relevant legal doctrine is subject to forfeiture or collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection, etc. is not related to the facts constituting a crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove strict facts, but also recognized by evidence. However, if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to forfeiture or collection, it may not be collected.

In addition, where there is money exchanged to the game users, the proceeds from the crime are the remaining amount after deducting the amount of money exchanged to the game users from the sales (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014, etc.). (b) The lower court determined that the Defendant, who operated the game of this case, obtained a benefit of 11 million won per day on an average of 1 million won per day during the 111-day operation of the game of this case, and additionally collected the amount from the Defendant.

(c)

(1) However, according to the facts charged in this case, the defendant converted the points of the game with the game machine installed in the game machine in this case into 5,000 won per one point and deducted 10% of the commission and exchanged 4,500 won at the rate of 4,50 won. Thus, the defendant should collect the profits actually gained from the crime in this case by deducting the amount of money exchanged to the game users from the sales amount of the game hall in this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below was erroneous in calculating the amount of additional collection without deducting the judgment of the court below. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant should be reversed.

2) In light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, the amount to be collected from the Defendant is calculated as follows.

According to each evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, ① the Defendant operated the game of this case from March 27, 2017 to April 26, 2017, and the Defendant on April 15, 2017.