A. Considering the facts that Defendant B’s statement in an investigative agency of misunderstanding of facts and that Defendant A does not clearly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flick, the lower court rejected Defendant B’s statement made in an investigative agency

B. In light of the legal principles, Defendant A provided his own ID to the customers finding the PC room, such as Defendant B, etc., and provided the game with his ID at will so that they can perform the game again by allowing them to perform the act of speculative acts, or to leave them to do so. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby acquitted the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the lower court, only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, led Defendant A to engage in speculative activities so that he/she may gambling against the Defendant B.

It is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant B had stuffed, and there is a different evidence to recognize it.