The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court sentenced Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) (1) to the Defendant, but the amount of KRW 50 million out of KRW 22,140,000,00,000, which was confiscated by H, an accomplice of the instant crime, should be excluded from the amount of additional collection, since the Defendant was the proceeds entrusted to H through J. As such, it should be excluded from the amount of additional collection. Of KRW 489,00,00, which was seized by L, the amount of KRW 2,449,00,00 (5%) equivalent to the shares that the Defendant should have distributed to H, and KRW 469,52, which was seized by the Defendant around December 28, 2015, should be excluded from the amount of additional collection. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles in calculating the additional collection charges.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, C, D, and E (Cheating of sentencing) that the lower court committed against the Defendants is too unreasonable that the lower court’s sentence (Defendant B: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence and 160 hours of community service, Defendant D’s imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence and 120 hours of community service, two years of suspended sentence and 120 hours of probation, Defendant C, and E: six months of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing for Defendant B, C, D, and E is unreasonable because the respective types of punishment for Defendant B, C, D, and E are too uneased.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) Article 51(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act provides that property acquired through a similar act with an instrument, device, etc. owned or possessed by a person punished pursuant to Article 47 Subparag. 2 to engage in a similar act shall be confiscated. Article 47(3) of the same Act provides that where it is impossible to confiscate the goods and property pursuant to Article 47(1) or where property is acquired pecuniary benefits, the equivalent value thereof shall be collected. However, if the criminal proceeds have already been seized by an investigative agency and confiscated, the equivalent amount shall be deducted from the calculation of the additionally collected amount.

(2) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is examined.