All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant acquired a total of KRW 154,60,000 from the victims to use the existing debt or gambling fund, etc., and furthermore, the Defendant spawd and habitually gling the amount exceeding KRW 1 billion in total through the gambling site for a period of about one year and three months, and habitually gambling with gambling money. In light of the fact that most damage to the crime of fraud was not recovered, the period, frequency, size of the money, and the social nature of the gambling crime that affected sound labor, etc., the Defendant need to be strictly punished.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant paid a small amount of money to the victims, but endeavored to recover from damage; (b) the Defendant did not commit gambling in the future; (c) there was no past record of punishment exceeding the same criminal history or fine; and (d) the Defendant’s age, occupation, family relationship, and other various conditions attached to the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate, and is too heavy or too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.