A. (1) The judgment of the court below which recognized the crime of aiding and abetting the gambling space establishment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though there was no strict proof as to the commencement of the principal offender's act of opening the gambling space in this case and there was no intention to commit

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the charges of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., although the DNA program of this case constitutes “malicious program” under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) When accessing a gambling site, guidance shall be provided for the installation of liquid X-ray.

② A security inspection and “P-certified connection” is installed on the computer screen without the consent of the user in the course of running LE X. ③ The function of deleting data or program that is immediately referred to as “security inspection” is to delete, “P-certified connection” is to automatically collect user’s access, ID, beer address, and hard disc cryer, and transmit the information to the server operated by the Defendants. During this process, the central processing device of computer or network share may reduce computer performance and Internet access speed by raising the user’s central processing system or network share.

2. Determination

A. (1) In determining the Defendants’ grounds for appeal, the lower court held that the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are the same as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, and the Defendants are the defendants in the judgment.