All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing

A. In a case where the principal offender paid wages to an employee who is an accomplice as part of the disbursement of expenses, Defendant A1’s main offender’s assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles is not allowed to collect additional charges for an employee who is an accomplice, and it is not allowed to collect additional charges for an employee who is an accomplice.

B) In a case where it is impossible to specify criminal proceeds subject to additional collection, it may not be collected. The amount to be collected by the Defendant cannot be collected in addition to the Defendant’s statement and the investigation report based on the Defendant’s statement, since there is no evidence on the amount received as a monthly salary, it cannot be said that the amount to be collected by the Defendant was specified. 2) In light of the final penalty as to the accomplices in a separate case on the summary of unfair sentencing claim, in light of the final penalty as to the accomplices, the punishment (two years of imprisonment, eight million won of additional collection), which the lower court

B. In a case where the principal offender paid wages to an employee who is an accomplice as part of the disbursement of expenses, Defendant B (A) is not allowed to collect additional charges for an employee who is an accomplice, and it is not allowed to collect additional charges for an employee who is an accomplice.

B) In a case where it is impossible to specify criminal proceeds subject to collection, it may not be collected. In addition to the Defendant’s statement and the investigation report based on the Defendant’s statement, there is no evidence as to the amount that the Defendant received as a monthly salary, and thus, it cannot be said that the amount to be collected from the Defendant was specified. The summary of the allegation of unfair sentencing is only one employee who is not the director of the division.

Therefore, the punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of 57,300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

C. The main offender of Defendant C1’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is paid to employees who are co-offenders as part of the cost disbursement.