The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In accordance with P’s instructions, the Defendant had a game machine installed in the instant game room, and had no participation in the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts (Provided, That the protocol of interrogation of the police officer in relation to D, other than the prosecutor of other defendant or suspect who has a relation to D, is admissible if the defendant denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8654, Feb. 23, 2007). Although the defendant consented in the court of the court of the court below to the effect that he denies the contents of the protocol of interrogation of the police officer in relation to co-defendant D in relation to himself and accomplice, it is illegal that the court below admitted the admissibility of the above protocol of interrogation as evidence and adopted it as evidence for conviction. However, even if the above protocol of interrogation of the suspect is excluded from the above protocol of interrogation of the suspect, it is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, if the above illegal measure of the court below did not affect judgment, it is sufficient to establish the game of this case together with the record and its reasoning.

B. On the assertion of unfair sentencing