게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In other words, the Defendant did not engage in a business of money exchange in the game of this case as stated in the facts charged of this case.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, on the ground that the testimony by the witness F, which is not admissible as evidence, and that its credibility is inadmissible as evidence.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court’s determination is based on the evidence of the witness F’s legal statement, the police’s statement report on the above witness, and the relevant photograph (the investigation record 18-20 pages, 37-42 pages). Of the evidence presented by the lower court, the evidence as stated in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the appraisal result reply and the seized evidence are evidence concerning the criminal facts of the co-defendant B, and seems to have no direct connection with the criminal facts of the Defendant.
The lower court rendered the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.
The witness F’s statement is credibility in light of the circumstances, such as ① the witness’s statement, ② there is no special interest in the outcome of the business of the illegal game of this case, ② there is no loss due to the game manipulation, ③ there is no special reason to make the statement unfavorable to the defendant and the co-defendants of the court below while imposing the burden of perjury.
Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence C above, that is, the money will be changed within the game room if it is normal exchange, and so, it is very incidental to the back of the crime so long as it is not for the purpose of illegal exchange, it can be sufficiently found guilty of the facts charged in this case.