The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on forfeiture, etc., by applying Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, confiscated computers, etc., but Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act is a special relationship with Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, in relation to a crime in violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, the lower court may confiscate them only where the requirements for forfeiture are met pursuant to Article 44(2)

However, given that seized computers, etc. do not constitute “game products, criminal proceeds, and property derived from criminal proceeds” under Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, they cannot be confiscated, since they do not constitute “property derived from criminal proceeds.”

B. Of the 265,600,620 won, most of the 265,600,620 won, which was collected based on the judgment of the court below as criminal proceeds, was exchanged by the defendant through normal use of the game, it cannot be deemed criminal proceeds, and this should be deducted from the amount

2. Determination

A. Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry as to the misunderstanding of legal principles on confiscation provides that “The game products owned or occupied by a person who exchanged tangible or intangible results acquired through the use of game products, profits generated from such criminal acts, and property derived from criminal proceeds shall be confiscated, and if it is impossible to confiscate them, the value thereof shall be additionally collected.” In relation to a crime provided for in Article 44(1) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, this only means that the game products, etc. provided for in Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry should be confiscated as necessary, and Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry does not exclude the application of the provisions of Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, and it is still in relation to a crime provided for in Article 44(1) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry.