The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants conspired to exchange tangible and intangible results acquired through the use of game water for business purposes; (b) the primary facts charged that the Defendants engaged in speculative acts by using game water; and (c) the ancillary facts charged that the Defendants conspired to do gambling and other speculative acts by using game water; and (d) the statements made by the first investigative agency, the core evidence of the primary facts charged, are difficult to believe in light of the I’s legal statement; and (c) it is difficult to find the Defendants guilty solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as video taken by the Defendant

In the case of preliminary charges, it was determined that the act of allowing game users to perform speculative acts or to abandon the points that Defendant B left in the account book could not be deemed to have performed the act of allowing game users to reuse later.

However, among the I’s legal statement, the fact that the act of exchanging money was conducted in the game of this case can be inferred in the expression that “the act of exchanging money was conducted in the game of this case.” The video of Defendant A’s appearance was obvious in light of the empirical rule that the method of operating the game of this case was not changed unless the time prior to the instant facts charged, the owner of the game room, and the game machine installed before and after the date of the instant facts charged, etc. are changed. The video of Defendant B’s appearance also proves that the above Defendant indirectly proves the act of exchanging money in the form of delivering money or things to customers, and in light of other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be found guilty of the facts charged of this case.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by mistake of facts.

2. The judgment of the court below was examined, and the court below started 20 pages 4 of the decision of the court below as to the primary and conjunctive charges of this case against the defendant.