The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where the principal offender in the misapprehension of the legal principle pays wages to an employee who is an accomplice as part of the disbursement of expenses, the collection of additional charges is not allowed for an employee who is an accomplice, and it is not allowed to collect additional charges for an employee who is an accomplice.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, etc.) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of legal principles, property acquired by a person subject to punishment pursuant to Article 47 subparag. 2 of the National Sports Promotion Act is subject to collection pursuant to Article 51(1) and (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act, and the above collection is intended to deprive of unlawful profits and not hold it. Thus, in a case where profits are gained through joint similar acts among several persons, the allocated amount, i.e., profits actually accrued shall be collected individually. Meanwhile, in order to obtain criminal profits, the cost disbursed by the offender is merely a method of consuming criminal profits, even if it was paid from criminal profits, and thus, it does not constitute a deduction from criminal profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008; 2015Do351, Jul. 23, 2015).