Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From among the proceeds of Defendant A’s crime, the amount of KRW 20 million was paid by dividing the investment money received from other investors, not the proceeds of the illegal game room’s business that F makes money exchange. While Defendant A returned it to F in the course of the judgment of the lower court, Defendant A should be excluded from the proceeds of crime, the lower court calculated the penalty amount at KRW 36.55 million including it, it erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the collection of criminal proceeds and by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B1) misunderstanding of facts related to the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act and the misapprehension of legal principles regarding the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry, the Defendant did not have conspired with F, G, A, and the Defendant did not gather illegal exchange facts and lent money upon G’s request. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the Defendant: (a) misunderstanding of the fact that the Defendant conspireded to exchange illegal money; (b) misunderstanding of facts; and (c) determining whether there was a public bid relationship or not; and (d) misunderstanding of the legal principles without specifying the public bid relationship.

C. Defendant C1) Violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act with Defendant A, D, and E (misunderstanding of facts related to joint residence intrusion crime and misunderstanding of legal principles, Co-Defendant D and E entered an apartment complex where Defendant F reside, and the occurrence of contingent disturbance does not constitute the elements of a residential intrusion.

Even so, even though the defendant C did not have any conspiracy with Co-defendant A, D, E to commit an act of disturbance or an invasion upon residence, the judgment of the court below that the defendant C conspired with Co-defendant A, D, and E to intrude into the residence of the O apartment resident residing in F. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.