All the convictions in the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 and the judgment of the court below No. 3 are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective sentence of the lower court (the first instance judgment, the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year, the second instance judgment: imprisonment for a period of one year and six months, and the third instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the facts-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (the part of the judgment below of the court below 3), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the Defendant’s statement to the investigation agency, AH’s statement, and the circumstances where the deposit account in the name of the Defendant, whose representative is the Defendant, was used for the crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts after May 2013, the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts after May 2013

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

2) The above-mentioned sentence of the 1nd judgment ruling on sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court below No. 3), the court below held that the defendant created and provided BV corporate account to assist the defendant in committing a crime of violating the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt after May 2013 of the persons without a name, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In addition to aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it as to this part of the charges on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it as well.

2) On April 23, 2016, the lower court explained about the Z casino business to AK, BW, BX, etc., which is the complainant, in the police large newspapers with AK, BW, and BX, which are the complainant on April 23, 2016, as follows, and himself/herself explained to the above complainant.