1. Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

2. Defendant C Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed.

3. Defendant F.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts against Defendants B and C), the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that Defendants B and C conspired with each of the instant crimes, even though it was sufficiently recognized, the lower court acquitted the Defendants.

B. Of the sentencing of Defendant F (a fine of two million won is imposed on Defendant F)

C. Defendant G1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are aiding and abetting each of the instant crimes, and even if the Defendant was not a joint principal offender who conspired with him, the lower court convicted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was a joint principal offender of each of the instant crimes. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine. (2) Of the sentencing division (one year: imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspended execution, and three

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts against Defendant B and C

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendants participated in each of the instant crimes in collusion with A, etc., and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① The Defendants’ investment was made before they start to operate a game site in a manner of conducting money exchange business using altered game products, and prior to the instant case, A has operated a game site in a lawful manner by using investment funds, etc. received from the Defendants.

② It is only A to decide to conduct money exchange business by replacing a game machine in which the Defendants operated a game room by legitimate means. The circumstances in which the Defendants actively participated in such decision are not peeped, and the Defendants are intended to replace the game machine.