The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles, the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment, including Speculative Acts by Defendant A, and the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry, are in substantive competition

Even if the defendant worked in a game room operated by A as an employee, and aided and abetted each of the above crimes by providing drinking water to customers, and by controlling the visitors to the game room, etc., each of the above crimes committed by A. Therefore, each of the aiding and abetting act constitutes an ordinary competition relationship corresponding to several crimes, but the court below erred by misapprehending this as a substantive competition relationship.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles as to A, Article 3-1 of the judgment below

A. (3) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. set forth in the items of paragraphs (3) and violation of each Act on Promotion of the Game Industry is in the substantive concurrent relationship set forth in the former part of Article 37

On the other hand, our criminal law is aware that the establishment of accomplice is dependent on the establishment of the principal offender.

Therefore, it is interpreted that the accomplice is not punished according to his desire and act, but should be judged based on the principal offender, and the principal offender's intention to assist the principal offender and the principal offender's act is an act that meets the requirements for the composition of the principal offender. In this case, the principal offender's intention is not required to recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but is sufficient to dolusence or prediction.

As such, in full view of the fact that assistance to each principal offender corresponding to the several concurrent crimes is also a substantive concurrent crimes, provided that the principal offender is aware of, anticipates, and attempts to assist the principal offender to commit such crimes, and provided that the principal offender is aware of, the principal offender's crimes, as a substantive concurrent crimes, and that assistance to each principal offender corresponding to the several concurrent crimes is also a substantive concurrent crimes.