Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The period from March 9, 2012 to the 13th day of the same month, which was operated by the defendant of mistake of facts; the court below, even though the period was from February 24, 2012, was the same year.

3. It was found that all of the facts charged in the instant case was guilty until 13. It was an unlawful determination of facts.

B. The judgment of the court below on the grounds that the amount of an unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable ( imprisonment for eight months and two years of suspension of execution, community service, 120 hours, confiscation).

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, ex officio, acknowledged the facts charged on the first trial date of the lower court, and denied part of the facts charged in the instant case at the time of the lower court’s first trial, and revoked the lower court’s order that the Defendant decided to judge in accordance with summary trial procedures pursuant to Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the confession in the lower court was not reliable. In this regard, the lower court became no longer able to maintain.

B. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal of facts.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant established 40 game machine from February 24, 2012 to operate a business by operating 40 game machine. On the 28th day of the same month, after illegally altering the program of the above game machine, the Defendant illegally altered the program on February 28 of the same year.

3. From February 2, 200, it is only possible to recognize the fact that he/she provided customers with the use of the above game machine, and further, the defendant from February 24, 2012 to the same year.

3. Until January, 300, there is no evidence to prove that the game machine illegally altered program was provided to customers. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake has some reasons.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal on some grounds is without examining the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing.