All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal doctrine misunderstandings (Defendant F) and violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment, including Speculative Acts by Defendant A, and violation of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry, are in substantive concurrent relations.

Even if Defendant F aided and abetted each of the above crimes of Defendant A by serving as an employee in the game room operated by Defendant A and providing customers with drinking water, and by controlling the visitors to the game room, etc., each of the above crimes committed by Defendant F. As such, each of the aiding and abetting act constitutes a common competition relationship corresponding to several crimes, the lower court erred by misapprehending this as a substantive competition relationship.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the Defendant’s imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and Defendant F’s fine of 3 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant F’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. listed in Article 4-4(a) of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and the crime of violation of each Act on Promotion of Game Industry is in a substantive concurrent relationship under the former

On the other hand, our criminal law is aware that the establishment of accomplice is dependent on the establishment of the principal offender.

Since it is interpreted, the accomplice is not punished by his/her intended and act, but should be judged based on the principal offender, and the principal offender must have the intention of aiding and abetting so-called aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender and the principal offender's act is an act that meets the requirements for the formation of the principal offender. In this case, the principal offender's intention is not required to recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to dolusent perception or prediction.

Therefore, unless the principal offender is aware of, or anticipates and attempts to assist in, the principal offender's crime, it constitutes a substantive concurrent crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005).