The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant should be excluded from the calculation of the additional collection charge for management expenses, public charges, and other operating expenses incurred by the defendant of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in operating each marina business of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below ordering the collection of additional charges including the above operating expenses is erroneous in mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order 120 hours, additional collection 21,659,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the collection of criminal proceeds from the determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of mistake of facts, even if the expenses that an offender spent to obtain criminal proceeds have been disbursed from the criminal proceeds, they are not merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds, and thus, they cannot be deducted from the criminal proceeds to be collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6775, Nov. 15, 2007). Since management expenses, public charges, etc. claimed by a defendant were incurred to obtain criminal proceeds, they cannot be deducted from the criminal proceeds to be collected.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.