A. misunderstanding of facts: The defendant's unemployment in the game room that the defendant participated in as an employee is G, not only a birth B but also a mere heart as an employee, and the defendant did not receive profits from the tangible and intangible result through money exchange in collusion with B, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court of original judgment otherwise determined.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentencing of the lower court (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, the statements and records of interview record in the E prosecutor's office, which are detained as the branch office of each game of this case, according to the following facts: (i) after E proves E to the prosecutor's office that E was unemployed, the F (which is a person who introduces E to B as the branch office) demands E with frequent interview; (ii) F also stated B as an unemployment owner at the prosecutor's office; (iii) the Defendant was absent from the control site because he was employed as an employee at the time of crackdown on May 20, 2012; (iv) the Defendant was punished for running the speculative game room business as the same business; and (v) the Defendant was a relative type of the game of this case; and (v) The fact that B is the owner of each game of this case can be sufficiently recognized in full view of these facts.

In addition, according to the statements of E and F, the defendant was aware that the game of this case was an illegal game room where the game of this case was exchanged, and even though the defendant continued to manage B and the game room, in collusion with B, because the defendant was aware that he was an illegal game room where the game of this case was exchanged.