The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was no misunderstanding of legal principles and fact-finding that the Defendant had operated the game of this case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the reliable statement B, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant is identical to the assertion of misunderstanding of the above legal principles and misunderstanding of facts, and the lower court directly examined the Defendant as a witness of the prosecution, B, C, T, and D, N, E, and X as a witness of the prosecution, examined the evidence documents, and examined the evidence, etc., and credibility exists in each legal statement

Based on the judgment, the defendant A was guilty.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the above judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or considerably unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). Defendant A can sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant A operated the game of this case in collusion with Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant A’s misapprehension of the above legal principles and the assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the size, operation period, operation method, and the degree of participation of the defendant as the owner of the game of this case is significant, and the defendant is consistent with the reasoning that it is difficult to understand while denying the crime, and the crime is committed during the suspended execution period, and the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various circumstances that form the condition of sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too excessive punishment against the defendant, and it does not seem unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.