Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts (as to the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry and the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. among the convictions), ① The statements made at L’s investigative agencies and the court of the court below are inconsistent and contradictory to each other, and there is no credibility. ② The statement made by G alone that the Defendant provided money to G as the fund for the operation of the K Gameland (hereinafter “K Game Center”).

In full view of the facts that it is difficult to recognize the H’s statement in the lower court, and the fact that H’s statement in the investigative agency is more reliable than the statement in the investigation agency, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in relation to K Game Head.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty part) ① According to L’s statement, “The Defendant accepted the game machine in C Game, examined the books in C Game, and divided the dialogue with his employees, and only the K Game Chapter opened after the control of C Game Funerals was found to report why “the Defendant reported to L.”

In full view of the fact that “the Defendant was “,” ② the Defendant appears to have frequently taken place in the C Game, ③ the K Game head was a newly opened game site upon the control of the C Game site, ④ deposited KRW 2 million in lieu of a fine to be imposed on H in relation to the head of the C Game, etc., the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged even if the Defendant conspired with G, etc. and operated the C Game site.

B. The above sentence, which the court below rendered unfair sentencing, is too uneasible and unfair.

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

A. The difference between the spirit of substantial direct psychologicalism and the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility.