A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in spite of the fact that the Defendant did not perform speculative acts by using the speculative gaming machines was erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 20 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts 1) Special Act on Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. (hereinafter “ Speculative Act”)

Article 30(1)1 of the same Act provides that a person engaged in speculative acts as a business by using slot machines or speculative gaming machines, other than speculative business under Article 2(1)2 of the same Act, shall be punished. Article 2(1)6 of the same Act provides that “a speculative gaming machine means a machine, apparatus, etc. that is likely to instigate speculative spirit, such as mechanical or speculative gaming machines, in addition to slot machines.” Here, the determination of whether a certain machine, apparatus, etc. constitutes “a machine, apparatus, etc. that is likely to cause speculative conduct” should not be based solely on the original usage or characteristics of the relevant machine, apparatus, etc., rather than on the basis of the method and type of use, the scale of profit or loss arising from such use, whether such profit or loss depends on friendlyness, whether a monetary or usable gift is paid according to the outcome of use, the degree and scale of use, and whether a monetary gift is actually given in cash (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1671, Feb. 16, 2007).

(1) Game machine used in a game room operated by the defendant shall be recognized as 100 points if it is input of 100 won.