A. The punishment of the lower court (a fine of 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part in the grounds) the defendant informed B of the business site for the operation of the game room to B, and aiding and abetting B to engage in speculative business by paying monthly rent in each game room and electricity instead. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below’s unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, assisted and abetted B to engage in a speculative business by advertising and informing Etel to the game room operation place; and (b) receiving the game room (D and Etel) monthly rent, electricity rent, etc. from B and paying them instead of others.

B. The court below held that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by H, namely, (1) related to D monthly rent and electricity rent, and (1) as evidence showing that the Defendant paid monthly rent, and the gist of the above statement was filled by H’s prosecutorial statement as evidence, and the above young people were found to have been paid monthly rent of KRW 2 million from 30,000 to 30,000, and H was not B and G, but H testified testified that the above young people were not the above young people at the court of the court below. However, although there were doubtful parts of H’s legal statement, expression, and attitude, it was not possible to find active evidence to believe that the above young people were the Defendant, and thus, H’s above statement is probative value to the extent that it is excluded from reasonable doubt.