The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (defendant B), although Defendant B was an employee of the game room in receipt of Defendant A’s instruction, and it can be acknowledged that customers assisted the act of gambling and other gambling by using game water, the court below acquitted Defendant B of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (a 10-year suspended sentence for Defendant A) (a 2-year suspended sentence for 10-month imprisonment, and forfeiture of evidence 1-17) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Recognizing that the facts charged are not guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). Examining the records in light of the aforementioned legal principles, a thorough examination is conducted.