All appeals filed by A, B, and E and the Prosecutor against the Defendant C are dismissed.

A. The respective sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants A, B, and E (T) (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, fine of two million won, confiscation, confiscation, confiscation, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact-finding, Y and X’s statements at the time of the police investigation, etc., it is reasonable to see that the Defendant committed gambling, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the charges of gambling on the charge of the crime of gambling is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence (3 million won of a fine, and confiscation) imposed by the court below on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Examining the evidence of this case as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts in light of the records, the court below's decision that acquitted the defendant of charges concerning the crime of gambling on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant committed the crime of gambling on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just, and it is not recognized that there was an error of mistake of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, B, E, and the prosecutor, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change of circumstances to consider sentencing after the lower judgment, and there is no change of circumstances to consider the sentencing following the lower judgment, and the sentencing conditions and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the instant records and pleadings are compared to the Defendants.