2. The lower court: (1) Defendant A is subject to the sentencing guidelines set forth in the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the sentencing guidelines set forth in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are less than eight months (the crime set forth in the sentencing guidelines and the crime for which no sentencing guidelines have been set are concurrent crimes; (2) Defendant B is subject to the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines set in the first sentence (the scope of the punishment for gambling), (3) the basic area (8 months to one year and six months); (3) the sentencing guidelines set forth in the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, including the place where gambling is set up (the scope of the punishment for gambling); and (3) the sentencing guidelines set in the second sentence guidelines set forth in the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act for not less than eight months (the minimum of the sentencing guidelines set in the sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines). (2) The sentencing guidelines set forth in the first sentence (the scope of the punishment for gambling), including the place where gambling is set.

In full view of the facts that are the conditions for sentencing in the trial, in particular, Defendant A’s leading in the crime of opening gambling, and Defendant B’s committing each of the instant crimes without being aware of during the period of probation for the same kind of crime, the wife, and the sentencing guidelines, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The judgment of the court below is assessed or maintained as it is.