The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is sufficiently anticipated that a person who operates an illegal gambling site shall receive a deposit of proceeds by using a borrowed account. As such, as long as the Defendant participated in the operation of an illegal gambling site, the criminal liability of accomplices is established as to concealment of criminal proceeds.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds among the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) there is evidence of reinforcement to acknowledge a guilty of the Defendant even if he/she confessions a criminal fact; and (b) in order to punish him/her as a principal offender for the most acquisition of criminal proceeds, there is a separate competitive relationship between the pertinent criminal act generating criminal proceeds as well as the act of obtaining criminal proceeds; (c) the Defendant was either directly engaged in the operation of the website or participating in the distribution of profits, not only after the Defendant developed the illegal gambling site, but also

There is no reason to view that the Defendant was aware that D et al. used the borrowed account while operating the instant site.

There is no direct material to see that the defendant conspireds to acquire criminal proceeds.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, namely, ① developed various illegal gambling sites and programs necessary therefor, rather than directly operating the illegal gambling site, and transferred them to the operators of each site. They stated, “The amount of KRW 1.5 million or KRW 2.5 million or KRW 5 million or KRW 2.5 million or KRW 5 million or KRW 1.5 million or KRW 2.5 million or KRW 25 million or less was paid from each month for the management expenses of the server” (one to seven pages of the examination protocol of the witness witness D), and ② the Defendant.