All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. According to the records on the defendant's appeal, on April 8, 2020, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment below on April 8, 2020 and received the notification of the receipt of the trial record from the court on April 21, 2020, but did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days, which is the submission period for the statement of grounds for appeal. The petition of appeal does not state the grounds for appeal, nor does it find

Therefore, in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal of the defendant should be dismissed by the ruling, but as long as the prosecutor declares the judgment on the appeal, the separate dismissal decision shall not be made, and the judgment shall be

2. Determination on the prosecutor’s appeal

A. The sentencing of the lower court is unfair in light of the following: (a) the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service order) is too minor; and (b) the penalty of KRW 72 million was not additionally collected on the basis of the actual profit recognized by the Defendant himself/herself, even though the penalty of KRW 72 million was not imposed.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Furthermore, the lower court could not retain the collection of additional charges for profits arising from a criminal act violating Article 44(1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act by depriving of unlawful profits.