A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty in the case of misunderstanding of facts is E, and the defendant was not in operation of the above scambling, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, and 200 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① E, which the defendant actually designated as the business owner, was under the management of the scambling at the time of control upon the request of the defendant's pro-Japanese, and the defendant prepared and affixed a signature and seal to the above scambling business owner (10 pages of investigation records). ② The defendant submitted a record recording of the statement recognizing that E is the business owner of the scambling in the first instance court as evidence supporting the argument that E is the business owner of the scambling, but even according to the contents of the recording, it is difficult to understand how E, which was in Korea as travel expenses, could receive the scambling with any money (in the case of the E, it seems that the defendant was a travel business owner at the time of traveling to E, and it seems that E cannot be easily able to present the above scambling site at the time of impeachment in light of the following circumstances:

The exposed D is residing in the police station in the vicinity of the so-called "Saccine", and the face of the defendant, who is the president of the above Saccine, has frequently shown the face of the defendant, and in conducting the game, only the staff of the Caccine (E).