All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) According to Article 48(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act claiming the omission of a surcharge imposition imposition, an article acquired by a criminal act may be confiscated, and if the confiscation is impossible, an amount equivalent to the value may be collected. The defendant needs to recover profits earned by providing a speculative game as a unemployment in the game room. Although the prosecutor imposed a penalty for additional collection, the court below erred by omitting an additional collection sentence against the defendant on the ground that the defendant was not prosecuted under Article 44(1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act. 2) The above sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant of unfair sentencing is too unjustifiable and unjust.

2. Determination

A. Article 48(2) and 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act regarding the prosecutor's assertion of omission of the imposition of the additional collection charge is discretionary, so whether to collect the additional collection even if it satisfies the requirements of the additional collection is left to the court's discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). The court below's failure to collect the profits of the defendant from the crime of violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry of this case can be deemed to be the result of exercising its discretionary power, and therefore, the prosecutor's allegation in this part is without merit.

B. Although the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor was made on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both the Defendant and the prosecutor, it appears that the Defendant was divided in depth by recognizing the error, and there are some other circumstances to consider the motive and circumstances leading to each of the crimes of this case, but the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months on the grounds of the fact that he operated a game room in 2010 and carried out a business of exchanging game products as a result of the crime, as well as the fact that he was sentenced to imprisonment for six