All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Although the Defendant merely worked as an employee in the game of this case and did not manage the game of this case as a whole, the Defendant was guilty of aiding and abetting, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s charge, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous determination of facts. (2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, even though there was no intention of aiding and abetting, and there was no intention of aiding and abetting in the instant case, even though there was no conspiracy of a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act with A, B, etc., and there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable, because the Defendant did not know the fact that the instant game room was an illegal game room and delivered the money received from the Kapoter to the Kapo

C. The lower court’s sentence (2 million won of fine) against Defendant D (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 4 million) against the Defendant against F is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant B and C

A. The first instance court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant appears to have been in charge of exchanging, etc. as the head of the instant game site, and the Defendant’s role in the instant game site A was deemed to have been in charge of operating the game site as the first co-defendant. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant’s role is the instant game site A.