The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the portion of additional collection of mistake of facts (defendant A), the account book No. 4, which was seized, was prepared by a person, other than the defendant, regardless of the crime of this case, and the judgment of the court below which calculated the additional collection charge based on the above account book,

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, probation, community service order 320 hours, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, probation, and community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether the defendant A is subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection can be recognized by free certification without requiring strict certification.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do399, Apr. 11, 1987). Meanwhile, criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment refer to the property generated by a criminal act or its remuneration, which is acquired with a causal relationship with the criminal act, and the property itself acquired with a causal relationship. In such a case, the expenses paid by the criminal to obtain criminal proceeds shall not be deducted from the criminal proceeds to be collected.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7146 Decided June 29, 2006, etc.). In light of these legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the health stand in the instant case and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, Defendant B stated in the investigative agency relatively consistent that the Defendants would receive 3.3% of the hosting amount from the gambling users as commission fees from the gambling site founders; the Defendants’ total hosting amount generated from August 13, 2019 to August 19, 2019 to the gambling site operated by the Defendants was KRW 146,412,729; Defendant B was the amount equivalent to 146,412,729 won at the investigative agency. Defendant B was the amount equivalent to 3.3% of the above 146,729 won.