A. In light of the mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the court below recognized only the defendant's liability as an aiding and abetting crime even though the defendant's intention to jointly process and functional control over a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act was recognized, in light of the statement of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a 2 years of suspended execution for 10 months of imprisonment, 22 million won additional collection) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of violating the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry on the grounds that the Defendant’s act such as the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the Defendant’s game room business (in collusion with D, etc., attracting customers in the game room, and having engaged in each crime as a co-principal in the judgment of the lower court by providing information on the game room, etc. with an atmosphere while playing a game or providing other customers with a game method within the game room) was not assistance in the game room business such as D, etc., and it is difficult to view that the Defendant made an essential contribution to the game product exchange business as a result of the game, and the evidence submitted by

In the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances revealed by the court below, namely, ① the defendant did not have invested or contributed to the game of this case, and the defendant did not appear to have shared information such as sales of D, etc. and the business profit of the game of this case. ② The defendant appears to have done the game as an actual customer in the game of this case, and the defendant informed other customers of the game of the atmosphere or the method of playing the game of this case.

Even if this is not the defendant, it is a behavior to take other than the defendant, and ③ the employee is separately employed in the game of this case other than the defendant.