A. The sentence of the lower court (each fine of KRW 8,00,000) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant was committed by setting up a computer on a studio’s officetel and accessing the illegal sports sports sports entertainment site at the same time, and committing the crime in light of the circumstances leading up to the crime, period, size, etc., with heavy liability, Defendant A had the record of being sentenced to one criminal punishment of fine for the same kind of crime, and Defendant B had the record of being sentenced to three times the suspension of indictment for the same crime, and Defendant B had the record of having been sentenced to three times the suspension of indictment for the same crime.

However, the Defendants’ confession to commit the instant crime and reflect their mistakes in depth, Defendant B is not in a health condition due to inter-regional and inter-regional diseases, etc., and the Defendants are receiving counseling treatment for gambling at the Busan Center of the Korea Gambling Stambling Stambling and Management Center as the Defendants did not repeat the instant crime, and the conditions favorable to the Defendants are also acknowledged.

On the other hand, in our criminal litigation law taking the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The unfavorable or favorable circumstances against the above recognized Defendants do not constitute a change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below.

In addition, the sentencing of the lower court is reasonable within the scope of discretion, in consideration of the overall circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing, as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the age, sex, and environment of the Defendants.