The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant D, E, and F shall be reversed.

Defendant

D and E shall be sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendants' punishment (defendant B and C: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 1 year of probation observation, 120 hours of community service, 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 1 year of probation observation, 1 year of probation observation, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of collection, 2 years of probation observation, 1 year of probation observation, 160 hours of community service, 1 year of probation observation, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendants D, E, and F (misunderstanding of the legal principles on additional collection) merely received benefits by being employed as an employee from A, etc. who actually operated each sports entertainment site of the instant case, and this merely paid benefits to the Defendants, who are the principal offenders, as part of the expense disbursement in order to obtain criminal proceeds. Thus, the amount may not be collected from the Defendants.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of the legal principles of Defendant D, E, and F

A. Property acquired by a person subject to punishment under Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the National Sports Promotion Act through similar acts is subject to collection under Article 51 (1) and Article 51 (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act, and the above collection aims to deprive him/her of unlawful profits and prevent him/her from holding it. Thus, in cases where he/she gains profits through similar acts in common, the amount of money distributed, i.e., the profit actually accrued shall be collected individually.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as the cost spent by an offender to obtain criminal proceeds was merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds even if it was paid out of criminal proceeds, it does not constitute a deduction from criminal proceeds to be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1312, Jun. 26, 2008; 2015Do3351, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, in cases where the principal offender who committed similar acts under the National Sports Promotion Act pays wages to employees who are co-offenders, if it can be deemed that such wages were paid as part of distributing criminal proceeds, Article 51(1) and (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act.