The judgment below

Among them, the portion of the additional collection against the Defendants is reversed.

The judgment below

The portion of the penalty surcharge shall be excluded.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (A) is merely a sub-lease of the game of this case to Defendant A and was not involved in the operation and exchange of the game room.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty on the premise that Defendant A was a business owner in the name of the business owner is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B) Even if Defendant A’s business owner is a business owner under the name of Defendant A, Defendant A did not have received the operating profit of the instant game room from Defendant A, and the basis for calculating the surcharge is unclear. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the additional collection portion among the lower judgment. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (2 years of suspended sentence of one year, community service work, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 11,167,00 and provisional payment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant was in the state of mental disorder or mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime. (2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a term of one year, community service, 120 hours, additional collection of KRW 11,167,00 and provisional payment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the remainder of the judgment below excluding the additional collection portion

A. As to whether Defendant A was involved in the operation of the game room and money exchange operations as a business owner in the name of the game room in this case, Defendant A asserted the same purport in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the judgment.

In addition to the following circumstances, the lower court’s ruling and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the lower court’s determination that found Defendant A guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

① Defendant A has reached an appellate trial, and around June 201 to July 201 of the same year.