The part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A The sentence of the original judgment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 2 months: Imprisonment for 8 months) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

O The second instance court's sentence (the fine of 3 million won) is too unreasonable.

Although Defendant A, an owner of the game room on the first floor in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant game room”), was employed by Defendant A, the main owner of the game room in Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant game room”), Defendant A was in charge of most practical speculative business activities, such as exchange business and preparation of business account books, which can be deemed the most essential business in the instant game room, in collusion with Defendant A, even though Defendant A operated the instant game room, the lower court did not recognize only Defendant A’s crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. and the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry, and did not recognize the establishment of joint principal offenders. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

The sentence against the Defendants is too unfeasible to the judgment of the court of the second instance.

Judgment

Defendant

The court of the trial on the judgment of the court of appeal against A decided to consolidate each appeal case of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A.

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against Defendant A in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is related to each other, and a single punishment shall be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes by judgment pursuant to Article 38(1)

In this respect, among the judgment of the court of first and second instance, the part against Defendant A could not be maintained as it is.

Defendant

Article 30 of the Criminal Code on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the public prosecutor's judgment on theO is a co-principal who commits a crime jointly with more than two persons. In order to constitute a co-principal, the intention of co-principal, which is a subjective requirement, is objective.