The purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains is to deprive the crime of its illegal profits and prevent it from being retained. On the other hand, under criminal law, joint crime, teacher crime, and accessories are intended to be punished for criminal acts and their degree of participation, so the two do not necessarily have to be consistent in logic. In other words, if a person is merely an accessory and receives sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she should pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. but if a person is joint principal offender and receive not sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she do not need to pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. In the result, who will pay the penalty from depends on the attainment of the purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains.

In General, cases, where the money received is mixed up and with those related to duties and those that are not, and as a result inseparably combined to each other, are classified into two categories. Type One is when a part or all of the received money is not related to duties, but materially as a whole can be recognized as a bribe, as it is in general precedents. Type Two is when only a part of the received money can be recognized as a bribe, and the rest is not recognized as a bribe (for example, since it is a justifiable compensation), but is objectively hard to divide the parts. In regards to Type One, the whole money received shall be recognized as a bribe, and therefore be treated as a general bribery case. Therefore bribery is charged for all the money received, and “special criminal laws on specific crimes” is applied according to the amount of the bribery. However, in regards to Type Two, since only a part of the received money is bribery, the received amount of money cannot be calculated by a normal estimation method. Thus, in principle, the amount is handled as not calculable, so that “special criminal laws on specific crimes” cannot be applied. This judgement showed that Type Two exists, and has a significant meaning as a precedent since it showed that in such a case the amount of bribery cannot be calculated and thus is unable to be additionally collected. Nevertheless, subsequent judgments seem to have distorted this judgement. It restricted this judgement’s range of application only to “when the money was received on several occasions, and when each receiving act is needed to be individually judged whether it is related to duties or not.”