The judgment below

The part of the defendant X-W against the defendant X and AW is reversed.

Defendant

X 1 Crimes 1, 2-A, b.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The lower court, without a clear ground, found that the Defendant, without a clear ground, obtained a total of KRW 7,8950,000,00 for the operation of the instant game room.

Recognizing the surcharge as 7,8950,000 won, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact about the collection of criminal proceeds, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 78950,00) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant G1) misunderstanding the facts related to the calculation of the surcharge and misunderstanding of the legal principles, without any clear grounds, the lower court, without any clear grounds, deemed that the Defendant earned a total of KRW 24.9 million due to the operation of the instant

Recognizing the surcharge as KRW 24.9 million, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts concerning the collection of criminal proceeds or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of eight months of imprisonment, additional collection 24.9 million won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

D, I, X, and AW sentence (Defendant D: Imprisonment of 5 months, Defendant I: fine of 10 million won, Defendant X: imprisonment of 1, 2-A, and C as stated in the judgment of the court below; imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months; imprisonment of 2-D as stated in the judgment of the court below; imprisonment of 2-D as stated in the judgment of the court below; and Defendant AW of 2 months; imprisonment of 8 months).

(d)

1) Defendant B, upon Defendant A’s request, made a false statement with regard to the operating process, source of funds, and the process of purchasing the game machine, etc. of the game room in this case as if the investigative agency was the actual business owner of the game room in this case. Defendant B submitted a false lease contract to the investigative agency and made it difficult or impossible for the investigative agency to detect or arrest Defendant A, the main owner of the game room in this case. As such, Defendant B’s criminal charge against Defendant B was found guilty.