The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The criminal proceeds of KRW 1,350,00, which the Defendant, who omitted collection, acquired from the victim B, constitute a crime victim property. Among them, KRW 852,00, which can be specified as a damaged product, was returned to the victim, but the remaining KRW 498,00,00, cannot be returned to the victim. Thus, it is subject to collection pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Forfeiture and Restoration of

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not collect the above 498,000 won is improper.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor, two years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

(a) Where deemed that the crime victim's property subject to the determination of omission of collection is a crime victim's property, and thus it is extremely difficult to recover damage, such as where the crime victim cannot exercise his/her right to claim the return of property or the right to claim the damage against the criminal, such property may be confiscated or collected, and such property shall be returned to the victim;

(Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Confiscation and Recovery of Corruption Property). Of the property acquired by the Defendant from the victim B as a crime of fraud as indicated in the holding of the court below, the Defendant amounting to KRW 1,150,00 (i.e., USD 5,000 ($ 5,940,000) excluding USD 17,190,000 (= KRW 17,340,000), - KRW 17,190,000) that was remitted to the non-indicted of the name constitutes criminal damage property. However, according to the records, the Defendant can be recognized the fact that the Defendant paid the victim B on December 16, 2019 and recovered all the damage.

Therefore, this case cannot be seen as falling under “where it is extremely difficult to recover damage because the victim is unable to exercise the right to claim the return of property or the right to claim the compensation for damage” under Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Decomposed Property. Therefore,

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing as well as the circumstances properly explained in the grounds for the sentencing.