The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the Lottery Fund Act do not impose restrictions on the method of selling lottery tickets. As such, the Defendant, who entered into a contract on the sale of lottery tickets with the lottery business entity, sold lottery tickets via E via a third party, instead of selling lottery tickets directly.

Even if the defendant's act is not in violation of the Lottery Tickets and Lottery Fund Act, the rate shall not be applied.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) the Defendant appears to have installed a lottery ticket issuer at the convenience store operated by E from the beginning and did not directly sell the lottery ticket; (b) the Defendant’s actual sales act is E; (c) it is difficult to view the Defendant’s simple employees as having been operating convenience store separate from lottery sales; and (c) the Defendant appears to be a person who sells online lottery tickets on his own account because part of the online lottery sales amount was received from the sales of one’s convenience store; and (d) even if the Defendant entered into an online lottery sales contract with E who did not enter into an online lottery ticket sales contract, if the Defendant sold lottery tickets in collusion with E who did not enter into an online lottery ticket sales contract, the lower court determined that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the crime that the Defendant sold lottery tickets without entering into an online lottery sales contract in collusion with E.

B. In light of the records of the above fact-finding and decision of the court below, we affirm the above fact-finding and decision of the court below, and as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.