A. The Defendant alleged a mistake of facts in D Gameland was only able to play a game with the qualification of a customer and did not play a role of a person in charge of management. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (7 million won of fine) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below made a statement that "E used the position of the defendant as the head of a department, and the defendant was aware that he was responsible for the management of the bar (see the trial record 61,64 pages)" as follows. G also made a statement that "the defendant was aware that he was a so-called Pow for the exchange of free gifts" (see the trial record 120 pages). Since both E and G were to work in D Gameland as an employee, it is reasonable to view that they are well aware of the circumstances of the above game site at the time, and that they have considerable credibility in the statement because they did not have any reason to make any particular statement, it is reasonable to view that there was no reason to make a false statement. Thus, the court below's fact-finding that the defendant served as a person responsible for the management of the game site, based on their credibility statements, etc., was justified.

B. Although there are no extenuating circumstances for the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant suffers from the protruding ticket for the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc