The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant did not act as the joint owner of the game of this case, but as the joint owner of the game of this case, did not merely help Defendant A to run the game of this case, but on the premise that the Defendant was the joint owner of the game of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 100 hours, the additional collection of six million won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the determination of the misapprehension of facts and legal principles. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the Defendant: (a) determined the trade name of the game site of this case as the trade name of the game site in the past; (b) concluded a commercial lease contract, internal construction contract, and a contract to lease a game machine for opening business; and (c) directly take charge of all necessary matters, such as guiding the Defendant A to provide safety education for publicly used establishments; and (d) in the process of receiving KRW 6.6 million from the above A more than three times and consumed all personal purposes; and (e) received KRW 14,500,000 from T on March 27, 2017 and received KRW 14,500,000 from the above Defendant to jointly bear the expenses for opening business, such as direct payment to U.S. users of this case; and (e) the Defendant had worked in the process of preparing and managing the game site of this case as his joint employees.

The term “(computer)”, “(computer)”, “I shall not be in the management of its members, and shall not be in the arrival, arrival, and 70,000,000 square meters,” “I shall not be in the management of its members.”