A. Defendant 1) The assertion of violation of the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles is deemed to have been included in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Although the statement of H, G, J and I to the effect that it conforms to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below is not reliable, the court below convicted of the defendant, although the defendant did not have contributed money to money exchange in the game, or caused or neglected transactions between money exchange and customers, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order80 hours, the forfeiture) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) In light of the Defendant’s statement on the claim for collection and the size of the game room, the lower court’s judgment that failed to collect the amount of collection, despite having proven that the amount of collection is specified, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the monetary content with H submitted by the Defendant in the trial of the party is merely a unilateral statement to a private investigation without the involvement of the other party, and in light of the extent that H can recognize the operation of the game hall, the content alone did not lead to the Defendant’s participation in the exchange.

In addition, the reasons why the statement was made cannot be seen, and the reasons why the statement was made separately from the defendant after the previous investigation agency and the previous investigation agency after the legal statement are made can not be known.

In addition, in light of the evidence submitted by the court below, it is difficult to believe that N's statement that it was not exchanged to customers in the relevant game field.

If so, the judgment of the court below was erroneous on the premise that the testimony of the investigative agency H, G, J and I was reliable.

There is no circumstance to see that maintaining the judgment of the court below is unfair, or there is no other circumstance to suspect the credibility of the above statement.