A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles only caused D to introduce a G to play a representative role in the name of the actual business owner of the F Game site to D and G, and did not operate a game room in collusion with D and G.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to public offering.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 19,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, a conspiracy is not required under the law, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Thus, if the combination of their intent is made successively or implicitly, a conspiracy is established if the conspiracy is made, and even those who do not directly participate in the act of the commission is held liable as a co-principal. 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the defendant and D operated the game site in Incheon. D operated the game site in Incheon. D transferred the game site to E from Incheon to the defendant's proposal and started the business of the game site in this case. 2) The defendant arranged a lease contract for the F Game site building through the real estate brokerage office operated by his own company, and introduced D to D the so-called branch office, and the defendant introduced the game site in this case by adding the above facts to the operation of the F Game site and the fact that the defendant had invested in the game site in this case. < Amended by Act No. 6307, Jan. 1, 2000>