The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) is as follows: (a) the Defendant merely allowed C, an accomplice to use the name of the criminal facts of the lower judgment, and did not receive any consideration for the use of the name and did not participate in the operation thereof; and (b) thus, the Defendant does not constitute an accomplice

The punishment of the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, C, the police investigation conducted by the police: (1) “The Defendant invested money in the game machine and the game room; (2) intended to manage and operate the money; and (3) if there was a profit, the Defendant would divide the money into two parts.

According to C’s above statement, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant shared the cost of driving the game of this case, and otherwise, C bears the cost at his own name and his own expense. In full view of the fact that the Defendant had C operate the game of this case after setting the game of this case without any conditions such as profit distribution, etc., the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant committed a crime as stated in the judgment of the court below in collusion with C.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

The sentencing of an unfair claim for sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty, within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance is at the discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the first instance sentencing trial process.