The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to Article 361-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellant must submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the date of receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records.

However, according to the records, the defendant did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal, and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for appeal, and thus the defendant's appeal should be dismissed pursuant to Article 362 (1)

However, insofar as the judgment of the court below is reversed as follows, the defendant's appeal shall not be dismissed separately from the disposition.

B. According to the evidence of misapprehension of the legal principle (Additional Collection Part), even though the Defendant’s profit derived from the instant crime was recognized as 18,540,000 won, the lower judgment which collected only 180,000 won, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the additional collection charge. 2) The lower court’s punishment of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 10,000,000 and the additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, and the recognition of the amount of collection does not require strict certification because it does not relate to the elements of a crime. Therefore, if the average daily income can be specified by the defendant’s statement, then the part that the defendant acquired can be collected by multiplying the number of business days, and then the part that the defendant acquired should be deemed to have

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1470, Jul. 25, 2013). (B)

In the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, ① the Defendant stated at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that “I would have been an average of two to three persons per day”, ② at the police, the Defendant stated that “I would have paid KRW 90,000 to the Defendant if I would have paid KRW 50,000,” and the Defendant stated to the effect that “I would have paid KRW 40,000 to the Defendant who would have paid KRW 90,000 to the employees who would have paid KRW 45,00,” and ③ in the prosecutor’s office, the Defendant stated to the effect that “I would have paid KRW 90,00 to the son.”