The judgment below

The part of the additional collection against Defendant D shall be reversed.

Defendant

7,500,000 won shall be collected from D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the investigation report that the lower court deemed as the ground for recognition of the fact as to Defendant D’s additional collection, Defendant D’s criminal proceeds constitute 2 million won and 5.5 million won for sales proceeds of games and game machine sales proceeds, which were acknowledged according to E’s statement, and even if they were to be followed, the amount was KRW 7.7 million, but the lower court collected 7.7 million for additional collection. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact as to the additional collection portion among the lower judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant D’s assertion of mistake in the part of the additional collection of the additional collection of Defendant D, i.e., the amount of KRW 2 million, based on which Defendant D was the profit of Defendant D at an investigative agency, and Defendant D was in the amount of KRW 2 million, based on an average of KRW 1 million.

Defendant D and E respectively bring about 35% profits.

Defendant D and E appear to have been the same amount, and ③ E sold a game machine and received KRW 11.4 million.

Defendant D, in light of the fact that Defendant D sold the game machine and received KRW 1.5 million, and among which he stated that Defendant D brought KRW 5.5 million to Defendant D, and Defendant D brought KRW 6 million to Defendant D, Defendant D can only be recognized as having criminal proceeds of KRW 2 million and KRW 5.5 million sales proceeds of the game machine. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant D had criminal proceeds of KRW 7.5 million, in addition to KRW 7.5 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, this part of Defendant D’s assertion is with merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendants' errors in the judgment of the court regarding the unfair argument of sentencing are divided in substitution of one's own mistakes.

However, the Defendants committed the instant crime.