The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The account books based on misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles are not the actual sales account books, and the sales account books include the defendant himself/herself a game, so there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the collection of penalty.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 6 million won, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the circumstances properly explained by the court below, a defendant in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not err by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the records, it is judged that the collection charge as stated by the court below is legally calculated (after preparing evidence No. 2).

The judgment of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretion is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the matters on the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the sentencing of the first instance court is determined.