The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendants did not engage in illegal money exchange or money exchange activities.

B. In the case of the 2017 Highest 979 Incident (J Game Chapter), the period of the crime by Defendant A and C should be limited from May 3, 2016 to August 17, 2016, when the employee B commenced the day.

(c)

In the case of the case of the 2017 Godan 1419 (L Game Chapter), the defendant consented to the admissibility of evidence against the CD(s) as evidence of guilt, but the above CD’s motion pictures were taken by the informant, and the above CD’s motion pictures were not specified, so it is doubtful whether they are admissible as evidence.

If there is no admissibility itself, consent is not given to use as evidence.

(d)

In the case of the 2017 Godan 1419, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the content of the said CD (hereinafter referred to as the said CD), as long as the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, the lower court should pronounce the Defendant guilty of only the act prior to the exchange on the day the

E. In the case of 2017 high group 1419, the lower court calculated the additional collection charge against Defendant C as KRW 62,50,000 (250 days of the business period of the L Game funeral x average of KRW 250,000 per day). However, insofar as there is no direct evidence as to the average daily income (the Defendant stated at the prosecutor’s office that “the average amount of KRW 20,000 per day was earned”) and applied favorablely to the Defendant, the lower court should regard the daily average income as KRW 20,000,000 per day and calculate the additional collection charge.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, etc.), C (one hundred months of imprisonment, etc.), D (50 million won), and E (20 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below to Defendant A and C is too unhued and unjust.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The court below also held that the Defendants related to money exchange activities are the same.