게임산업진흥에관한법률위반등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A No. 1-A, 2-A, of the decision of the court below
(iii).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that Defendant A gave testimony in each criminal case against Defendant C and J, and that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) Defendant B violated the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry from September 30, 2009 to October 25, 2009, the part of the judgment below that found Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the Defendant did not have committed a speculative or exchange business using water game apparatus in Seoul Mtel No. 105 and 106 “I” but did not have any error of law by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below that the Defendant was guilty of this part of the charges against Defendant C from September 30, 200 to October 25, 2009.
3) Defendant C testified at the court of a criminal case against J, but the Defendant testified as his memory, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (4) Defendant C testified as to Defendant B from September 30, 2009 to October 25, 2009, from November 25, 2009 to November 12, 2009, Defendant C testified as to the effect that there was no share in the judgment against his memory in the court of this case, such as violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry of J, even though the Defendant engaged in illegal gambling entertainment with J et al., along with J, from November 12, 2009 (Seoul Mtel 105 and 106). Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts (the judgment of the court below is erroneous.