A. Fact-misunderstanding is not the defendant who was unemployed by the head of the game of this case, but L, and the defendant is merely the whole person who lent the game store to L. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, i.e., the president of the "D Gameland", who was the head of the game of this case.

E The first prosecutorial investigation stated that “the defendant actually runs the business,” “the person other than the defendant is aware of it as an employee,” “E is a clear statement to the effect that “the person other than the defendant knows it as an employee,” “The document of the prosecutorial office, No. 65th day of September 14, 2009,” and “F introducing the above E to the defendant was the president of D Gameland (a person operating the store)” when the first prosecutorial investigation was conducted (the first prosecutorial statement and evidence record No. 85th day of September 23, 2009), ③ in the court of the lower court, “F made a statement to the effect that it is “L” as an employee, but “F made a statement to the effect that it was not a specific employee,” and “E” in the prosecutorial office’s statement to the effect that it did not take any specific grounds for the first prosecutorial office’s damages other than the evidence or evidence No. 98th day of the request to obtain any specific damages from the defendant’s office.