The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Seized No. 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant was merely an employee of the Ntel game room and did not operate the above game room, and did not engage in money exchange in the above game room. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s decision on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles made the Defendant a revenue of KRW 10 million as the operator of the Ntel game room, but the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a collection of KRW 1.5 million. The lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s sentence of unfair sentencing is so unfair that the above sentence imposed by the lower

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, prior to determining ex officio (Article 1 of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below) and the prosecutor's grounds for appeal, it can be acknowledged that the defendant provided a game product not classified as an employee of "J game room" and exchanged the result obtained through the use of the game product as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, and that the defendant stated in the prosecutor's office that "the defendant obtained a profit of 3.6 million won during the period of the crime" and that "the defendant obtained a profit of 3.6 million won during the period of the crime." Since this is subject to the necessary additional collection pursuant to Article 44 (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, the court below which did not sentence additional collection

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.