The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The imprisonment with prison labor for the accused shall be determined by one year and ten months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received wages as an employee and did not receive any benefit from the instant crime, and thus, the amount equivalent to the Defendant’s benefit cannot be collected.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

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

2. The property acquired by a person subject to punishment pursuant to Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the National Sports Promotion Act through similar acts is subject to collection under Article 51 (1) and (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. As such, in cases where he/she gains profits by jointly similar acts, the amount of money distributed, i.e., the profit actually reverted to him/her, should be collected separately.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as the cost spent by an offender to obtain criminal proceeds was merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds even if it was spent from criminal proceeds, it does not constitute a deduction from criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008; 2015Do3351, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, in cases where the principal offender who committed similar acts under the National Sports Promotion Act pays wages to an employee who is an accomplice, if it can be deemed that it was paid as part of distributing criminal proceeds, an amount equivalent to the amount of wages that he/she received from an employee who is an accomplice may be collected as a penalty pursuant to Article 51(1) and (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act.

On the other hand, if the principal offender paid benefits to an employee who is an accomplice as part of the expense expenditure in order to obtain criminal proceeds simply, collection of additional charges under the above provision against an employee who is an accomplice is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6163, Jul. 11, 2018). Such a legal doctrine applies to the property acquired through similar acts under Article 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds.