1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A concerning additional collection shall be reversed.

Defendant

A KRW 102,064,011.

1. The gist of grounds for appeal (the grounds for appeal shall be examined only to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the statement of grounds for appeal filed by Defendant B, the defense counsel of February 28, 2017 and April 11, 2017 submitted by Defendant B after the lapse of the submission period for the statement of grounds for appeal)

A. Defendant B (as to the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry) was guilty of this part of the facts charged even though Defendant B merely developed and supplied a “M” case to Co-Defendant A, and did not compete with or lead the act of exchange with A, and did not know of the fact of exchange. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months; confiscation; confiscation; additional collection KRW 204,128,02; Defendant B: imprisonment for a crime of paragraphs 1 and 2; imprisonment for a crime of Articles 1 and 2; confiscation; confiscation; additional collection KRW 204,128,02) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A 1) ex officio (the part on additional collection) and the purpose of collecting additional collection of profits arising from a criminal act violating Article 44(1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”) is to deprive him of unlawful profits and not to hold them. Thus, where several persons jointly gain profits from an illegal game room business, only the distributed amount, i.e., the profit actually accrued, shall be collected, and where the distributed amount cannot be individually known, the amount shall be collected equally (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant A, along with the joint Defendant B, exchanged in this case from November 201 to June 2016, 1, 184, 628, 202, and BP from each of the two countries P&M, 202, and BP, respectively.