The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by the prosecutor (the part not guilty in the original judgment of the court) the fact that the defendant committed speculative acts using game products, such as those stated in this part of the facts charged, in collusion with the exchange merchants D, E couple, and A and B, the actual owner of the game of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, confiscation, and community service order 200 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

Defendant

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

The facts charged in this part of the judgment of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (the fact that the defendant had engaged in speculative acts using game products) stated in this part of the facts charged as follows: A and B, from May 8, 2012 to January 22, 2013, the defendant installed 50 game machine "B" L in Ansan-gu L and MM game room on the second floor, and accumulated the points obtained through the game on the points of the game in the above game, and D and E exchanged the game machine's 30,000 won per cash per 30,000 won for the game money accumulated in the points custody card to customers.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with A, B, D, and E to perform a speculative act by using game products.

The judgment of the court below held that money changers D and E merely sold game money to other customers in the game room without the fact that they operated the game of this case, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that they conspired with the above money exchange and the defendant, and there is no proof of crime under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.