The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

Defendant.

1. The first instance judgment, the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), judged the credibility of the evidence consistent with the facts charged, such as the protocol of interrogation of suspects and the statement of payment of allowances, etc., of E, thereby misleading facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant, in collusion with E, F, G, A, and H, intended to invite investment funds necessary for operating gambling sites by opening a server in China from many and unspecified persons with the trade name of “A”. From August 29, 2012 to October 18, 2012, the Defendant would pay 140% including the principal of investment to many and unspecified persons, including L, in the office of the fourth floor of the building in Seoul Gangnam-gu Jin-gu and the office of the 614 office in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul to operate gambling sites” against many and unspecified persons, including L, “When investing in the business of operating gambling sites using a computer server in China for one month, the agreed period of investment shall be one month with 10% of the principal of investment funds for each week.

“Inducing investments by explaining the investment,” and receiving investments of KRW 1,108,00,000 from L on August 29, 2012, including the receipt of investments of KRW 10,00,000 from L, and agreed to pay the total amount of investments or the amount in excess, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

B. The first instance judgment of the first instance court, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, includes the statement of the prosecutor’s suspect interrogation protocol regarding E, which corresponds to the facts charged against the defendant among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, but it is not enough to acknowledge the above facts charged merely by the statement of the witness E in the third instance trial protocol of the first instance judgment to the effect that the defendant merely heard and invested in the explanation of E and H, but failed to attract investors, and by the statement of the witness H in the fourth public trial protocol, in light of the witness H’s statement in the fourth public trial protocol, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts charged.