The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B and C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment of eight months, suspension of execution of two years, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B and C: Each fine of 2.5 million won) of the lower court against the Defendants is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

(A) The public prosecutor explicitly withdraws his assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the confiscation and collection of penalties against Defendant B and C on the second day of trial according to the amendment of the indictment in this part). 2. The operation of the illegal speculative game room in judgment against Defendant A is a serious crime that causes serious social harm, such as encouraging speculative spirit and undermining sound work awareness.

In the process of opening the game room business, the defendant lent the lease deposit to D who is the owner of the game room business, colored the game room, and served as the management director of the game room more than the simple employee by managing the game room on behalf of D during the week.

However, the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime.

The period of crime is short and there is a lot of profits from crime.

There is no criminal records exceeding the same criminal records and fines.

It seems that the suspended sentence of imprisonment is final and conclusive with respect to D, the main owner of the business.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, background and background of the crime, period of the crime, profits therefrom, degree of participation in the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor of the judgment on the defendant B and C applied for changes in the indictment to "Article 10 (1) and Article 8 (1) 1 and 4 of the Game Industry Promotion Act" in the "Article 44 (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act," and since this court changed the subject of the judgment, the part on the defendant B and C among the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

4. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.