The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) Although the Defendant was involved in the operation of the game room under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the facts charged, the Defendant left from the business relationship thereafter and did not participate in the operation of the game room under paragraph (3) of the facts charged, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts. 2) The Defendant did not have received any amount of money through the instant case, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 112,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts against the MM game room: in the case of a co-principal of the relevant law, if one of the competitors leaves from the public contest relationship before the other competitors reach an action, he/she shall not be held liable as a co-principal with respect to the subsequent acts of the competitors; however, in the public contest relationship, the deviation from the public contest relationship needs to be resolved by the functional control of the competitor's actions. As such, when the competitor participated in the public contest leading and did not remove the influence on the execution of the contest, such as actively endeavoring to stop the crime, if the competitor did not remove the influence on the execution of the contest, it shall not be deemed that he/she escaped from the public contest relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9298, Apr. 12, 2007; 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008).