Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

Defendant

B.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act as indicated in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant introduced G to B, and did not operate the game of this case in collusion with B, etc.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The Prosecutor (as to Defendant A)’s sentence against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) In order for a joint principal to be established, two or more persons to jointly engage in a specific criminal act and to engage in a criminal act using another person’s act should be recognized as having committed the crime. Thus, the public offering of this case does not require any legal form of punishment, and thus, there was no overall mother process.

Even if there are two or more persons, a public contest relationship is established if the combination of doctors is made successively or implicitly, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution should bear criminal liability as a joint principal offender for the act of another person. However, the intention is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime but to accept it without restraint, and should be integrated to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent, and it should be subject to strict proof to recognize it as constituting a criminal fact of such public contest or conspiracy. Thus, if the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the point of the public contest, it shall be subject to such subjective proof.