A. In full view of the prosecutor’s statements by the prosecutor (the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry Related to theO) and L’s police statements by the prosecutor (the spouse of F, the joint operator of F, the joint operator of F, the game of this case (hereinafter “the game of this case”), the fact that the Defendant was the actual owner of the game of this case who operated the game of this case with the joint operator. In full view of the Defendant’s spouse D’s police statements by June 18, 2016, the Defendant’s spouse D’s police statements by November 2, 2016, the prosecutor’s statements by November 2, 2016, and F’s prosecutor’s statements by the Defendant, the joint operator of the game of this case, etc., the lower court is insufficient to prove this part of the facts charged.

In light of the above, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination on this part of the facts charged, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, based on D, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was not reliable, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not proven without any reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to regard it, and judged not guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A) On May 23, 2016, D made a statement to the effect that “H” was generally exchanged in police investigations, but it was stated that the instant game Chapter was not exchanged.

On June 18, 2016, D stated that R was exchanged under the direction of E, a co-operator, in the instant game chapter in the police investigation on June 18, 2016. In exchange, D is called “ben” in the computerized book.