The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

Defendant

C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B 1) The Defendant did not have any fact in the “F Game Center” as stated in the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C’s punishment (2 million won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal as to the defendant B prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

The facts charged against the defendant constitute a single and continuous crime in which several acts falling under the name of the same crime are continuously conducted for a certain period under the same criminal intent, and the legal interests of such damage are the same and constitutes a single crime.

In addition, in a case where an individual criminal act, which is a single comprehensive crime, is committed over the period before and after a final judgment of a different kind of crime, the crime is not divided into two crimes and completed at the time of the final criminal act which is a final judgment after the final judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5341, Aug. 22, 2003, etc.). In such a case, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act was divided into two crimes due to a violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, which became final and conclusive on July 29, 2016, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment (two months and four months) with prison labor.

This constitutes a case where the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of comprehensive crimes committed before and after the final judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, on the premise that the defendant's conviction of the facts charged in this case is not any obstacle to whether the defendant is a regular employee of the game room, or whether he is not receiving the benefit.