2. Determination

A. It is recognized that Defendant A recognizes all of the crimes and reflects the wrongness of Defendant A, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine after 1990, and that he/she agreed with the victim of the crime of injury.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the crime of opening a gambling place was committed with a significant social gambling, such as harming the desire to work in good faith and promoting speculative spirit; (b) the opening period, frequency of opening the gambling place, and the scale of gambling funds in this case; (c) the Defendant took the leading role in the crime of this case, such as preparing a place necessary for the operation of the gambling place and sharing the remaining accomplices with duties; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the crime of this case, means and consequence; and (e) the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and theories of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not deemed unfair for the lower court’s punishment to be too excessive.

B. It is recognized that Defendant B recognized all of the crimes and reflected the mistake.

However, in light of the fact that the crime of opening a gambling place is serious social prejudice, such as harming the desire to work in good faith and promoting speculative spirit, the defendant's share, the role of the defendant, the frequency of participation, and the scale of gambling funds, the crime of this case is not less complicated, and the defendant has the record of being punished several times due to a double crime, and other factors such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the crime of this case, means and results, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendants' appeal is justified.