Part concerning Defendant B and F shall be reversed.

Defendant

B/F shall be punished by imprisonment for each of eight months.

Defendant .

A. The Defendant B had access to the game of this case as the guest of the game of this case on several occasions, but only he was seated at the game of this case, and there was no participation in the operation or management of the game of this case, and there was a fact that the Defendant B had attempted the operation of the game of this case on domestic affairs.

Even if this is an aiding and abetting act.

Defendant

F was engaged in the game room business of Defendant A as a night practice manager in the game of this case, and the game of this case was not operated with Defendant A.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B and F made a decision on the mistake of facts in the game of this case as to whether Defendant B and F are co-owners of the game of this case or whether Defendant B and F are co-owners of the game of this case, there are evidence of the lower court witness M, N’s each legal statement and other indirect facts. In the lower court’s decision, M and N are night employees who worked in the game of this case for about one week, and Defendant B are the chief of the day-time president, Defendant F are the chief of the day-time president, and Defendant F are the chief of the night president, and Defendant B and F are the chief of the day-time president, and they thought to be the president that they did not perform any act of customers or simple employees, such as talks with Defendant A and managers who are the president or confirming books by making a talk or making it possible for them to do so.

However, even if he did not have worked in the game of this case for a period of one week, and even if Defendant B and F did specific acts that he thought to be the president, they cannot be readily concluded that they were the operators of the game of this case, in light of the fact that Defendant B and F cannot be said to be the operators of the game of this case, their statements that Defendant B and F are joint owners of the game of this case are merely a conjecture, and it is difficult to readily believe that the remaining indirect evidences alone are sufficient.