All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

From the defendant 104,800.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the second instance judgment), there is no evidence to identify the employee’s pay, credit amount, and other expenses that the Defendant spent while operating the game room, and thus, the criminal proceeds cannot be accurately specified.

Therefore, the judgment of the second instance court that collected KRW 98 million on the basis of the daily average money exchange fee even though it is reasonable to not collect the criminal proceeds in this case because it does not specify the criminal proceeds in this case, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months; the surcharge of 6.8 million won; the second instance court: imprisonment of 8 months; confiscation; and the surcharge of 98 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The cost spent by the offender to obtain criminal proceeds in relation to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine was spent from the criminal proceeds.

Even if it is merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds, it does not constitute a deduction from criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do7146, Jun. 29, 2006; 2007Do6775, Nov. 15, 2007). Examining the record in light of such legal principles, the Defendant spent employees’ benefits, credit amount, and other expenses necessary for operating the game of this case, with which the criminal proceeds acquired from money exchange commission was spent.

Even if the defendants consumed criminal proceeds of this case, it is nothing more than that of the defendants to calculate the amount of additional collection of criminal proceeds of this case, such expenses should be considered.

Therefore, the court below's calculation of a surcharge on the basis of the daily average exchange fee is appropriate as it specified only the criminal proceeds acquired through money exchange except for "criminal proceeds acquired by providing game products other than rating classification and other game products for use" which are not collected in the court below, and the defendant's assertion that it cannot be collected as a penalty because criminal proceeds are not specified is without merit.

3. On the other hand, the defendant's person.