All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The Defendants alleged the misunderstanding of the facts of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) are acknowledged only as to the establishment of the old-age juristic person and the establishment of the passbook in which they participated, and the rest of the public-private partnership is not recognized. However, the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the grounds that the Defendants divided the profits related to the distribution of the passbook.

Defendant

A Only established a floating legal entity under his/her own name and opened a corporate account (U), K, and SS). Defendant B also participated in only the establishment of a floating legal entity under his/her own name and the opening of the account of that legal entity (U), and the opening of the account of that legal entity (U). The Defendants did not divide the profits that they created in relation to the distribution of the passbook and the profits that they created in relation to the distribution of the passbook.

Even if there was a division of profits in relation to the distribution of the passbook

Even if a public contest relationship is recognized only for violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in relation to the distribution of the passbook, there is no public contest relationship between the corporation and the establishment of the passbook.

The respective sentence of the court below (each of the defendants' imprisonment with prison labor of eight months) is unfair because it is too unreasonable to argue that the sentencing of the defendants is unfair.

According to the F’s lower court’s legal statement and prosecutor’s statement on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, ① the Defendants were in charge of the Plaintiff’s domestic sales of gambling boxes operated by the O, and F was given a statement that F would make and sell the passbook for the first time with the Defendants around April 2016, ② the Defendants would open and sell the passbook for the first time, ② the Defendants would have half of the 1.5 million won out of the monthly profit accrued from one passbook for the Defendants’ opening and selling the passbook for the first time, and the Defendants would have half of the 1.5 million won out of the monthly profit accrued from one passbook, ③ the Defendants introduced the Defendants in relation to the distribution of the passbook, ③ the corporate name was only written in the corporate passbook, and the name of the representative was not written in the corporate passbook, and thus, the only one made by F and the Defendants.