A. Defendants A, misunderstanding the facts, only lent the name of the game site in this case to Defendant B, and did not participate in the operation. Defendants did not invite D to exchange with D and D did not exchange D.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million, confiscation, Defendant B’s imprisonment with labor for 10,000,000,000,000,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of fact 1), the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① Defendant A was in a separate line with Defendant B and was lent to receive living expenses from Defendant B. However, Defendant A was residing together with Defendant B at the time of the police investigation.

(2) Defendant A entered the game of this case at the time of police investigation to the extent of 15 times in the month when the police investigation was conducted.

In full view of the facts that Defendant A was a chief of the game of this case to receive living expenses from Defendant B, and that Defendant A was a chief of the game of this case at the time of execution of search and seizure warrant for the game of this case, Defendant A can fully recognize the facts that Defendant A participated in the operation of the game of this case. Thus, Defendant A’s allegation on this part is without merit.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, D can sufficiently recognize the fact that D was engaged in the money exchange business in the game of this case. In light of the circumstances in detail presented by the court below, the fact that the Defendants conspired with D and carried on water exchange business as a result of the use of the game water is sufficient.