1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. The sentencing of the court below (the sentencing of the defendant A: the suspended sentence of two years and additional collection of ten thousand won in August, and the fine of fifteen million won in case of the defendant C) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment ex officio (as to Defendant A), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below is as follows: (i) Defendant A was under control on January 25, 2013 while operating the game of this case from July 23, 2012 to January 25, 2013; (ii) seizure of one KRW 50,000,000 and twenty seven KRW 10,000,000,000, which were inside the game of this case at the time of control; and (iii) the fact that the average daily profit of the game of this case was 10,000 won.

The lower court: (a) confiscated the seized article from Co-defendant B, who is an accomplice; and (b) additionally collected KRW 17.8 million by multiplying the average daily profit per day from August 1, 2012 to January 25, 2013 by KRW 100,000,000,000 from Defendant A; (c) however, in light of the fact that each of the above KRW 50,00 won and KRW 10,000,00 were seized at the time of control and was at the scene of the crime, it is presumed as part of criminal proceeds; and (d) as such, it is reasonable to deduct it from the additionally collected amount.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the amount to be collected from Defendant A is KRW 1,780,00,000 obtained by multiplying the average daily profit by 1,280,000 won per day from August 1, 2012 to January 25, 2013, by 1,780,000,000,000, deducting the above KRW 3.28,000,000,000,000 from Defendant A. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

Defendant

A asserts that the net profit actually earned by Defendant A does not reach the average of KRW 100,000 per day when employee's daily allowance, rent, etc. is paid to Defendant A, but in addition to additional collection of criminal proceeds, the cost spent by the offender in order to obtain criminal proceeds is only a method of consuming criminal proceeds even if it was paid from criminal proceeds.