All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) Unlike the description of the instant facts charged, the Defendants related to the calculation of the criminal period are not the police officer from November 2017, 2017, but the “KPC” located on the first floor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul High Court (hereinafter “instant game room”) from February 2018.

(2) The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor related to the calculation of additional collection charges against Defendant A alone is insufficient to specify the criminal proceeds of Defendant A. Therefore, the punishment of additional collection sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A is unlawful, since the period of the instant crime was from November 2017 by the Defendants.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, confiscation and collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and one year) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court in relation to the calculation of the period of the instant crime, the lower court’s determination on the period of the instant crime was just and acceptable from November 201, 2017, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment as alleged by the Defendants. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.) In so doing, the lower court acknowledged the period of the instant crime from November 201, 201 to the lower court.

However, the confession statement that the defendant recognized all of his criminal acts in the court cannot be easily rejected unless there is an explanation to understand the circumstances leading up to the confession. The defendant's confessions in the investigative agency and the court of original instance are different from the legal statement in the appellate court alone, the probative value or credibility of such confessions shall be the probative value or credibility.