All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) and the misapprehension of legal principles, along with accomplices, the Defendant’s “P” (hereinafter “P”) on the gambling site of this case.

(2) The Defendant’s act and the act of disposal of the victim did not have any causal relationship between the Defendant’s act and the victim’s act. Nevertheless, the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to causal relationship in the crime of assault and threat. (2) The first instance judgment of unfair sentencing (one year and six months) is too unreasonable, because the victim and the accomplice committed a dispute over the return of the said money. In addition, the victim had already been aware that the fact of hacking was discovered, and the victim had already been aware of the fact that hackingd the said money, and in fact, returned the money to the Defendant’s accomplice. In fact, there is no causal relationship between the Defendant’s act and the act of the victim.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by a mistake-finding prosecutor as to the acquittal portion of reasons among the establishment of gambling spaces, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant took part in the operation of the instant gambling site from September 2014 to October 5, 2015, and acquired profits of KRW 7,451,981,70 as a general manager of the said site. Nevertheless, the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant did not sufficiently prove that he participated in the operation of the instant gambling site from September 2014 to January 1, 2015, was not sufficiently proven.

2. Determination:

A. In order to establish a crime of 1-related legal conflict with the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the victim should be released by intimidation of the offender, and the victim thereby.