A. Defendant A, B, M,O, R, and V1) The summary of the oral argument filed on September 9, 2019 after the deadline for submitting the Reasons for Appeal of Defendant A was expired, to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal. A) In relation to the fact that the establishment of a gambling place in the first instance court’s 2017Kadan2172 case is erroneous and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A only contacted the neighboring branch in the way of gambling at the request of AT, which is a warehouse, to play in the gambling place. Therefore, Defendant A is not a joint principal offender of the opening of gambling place, but a joint principal offender of the aiding and abetting.

B) The punishment sentenced by the court below (the crime of opening gambling places No. 1 in the annexed list of crimes No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, and the crime of opening gambling places No. 2 in the judgment of the court below, and the crime of opening gambling places No. 2 through No. 11 in the annexed list of crimes No. 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance, are deemed to be too unreasonable. 2) The punishment sentenced by the court below (the punishment of imprisonment of the court of first instance, six months, and six months) is too unreasonable.

3) The punishment imposed by the lower court (an administrative fine of KRW 5 million) on Defendant M (an administrative fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable. (4) Defendant O’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are deemed to have been responsible from the beginning, and Defendant O’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not simply go to gambling, but merely go to gambling on several occasions, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an accomplice in the crime of opening a gambling place. (b) The punishment (an administrative fine of KRW 2.5 million) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

5) Regarding the establishment of gambling places in the second instance judgment 2017Kadan4252 case of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant R did not constitute the crime of opening gambling places since Defendant R did not receive money from Defendant R borrowed to A, but did not constitute the crime of opening gambling places.

In addition, Defendant R went to a gambling place only when Defendant A opens a gambling place, while Defendant A opened a gambling place at 11 times.