2. Determination:

A. Although the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the defendant's mistake and reflects it, and the crime of this case committed by the defendant serves as a "duplicate". However, all these circumstances are considered in the original judgment; the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of a repeated crime, such as gambling opening, which served as a "duplicate" and served as a "duplicate" in the original judgment; and the defendant committed the crime of this case again without being aware of it; the defendant was sentenced to a fine for gambling; other than the crime of this case, the period of operation of the gambling site of this case is short, and the case is not less than 41 million won in total, but not less than the period of operation of the gambling site of this case; considering all the circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the situation and contents of other crimes of this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, family relationship, occupation, etc., the sentence of the original judgment is too unreasonable.

B. (1) According to the records of this case related to the operation of the L site of this case, the fact that the defendant who served as the "duplicate" in relation to the "L" of this case is about 0.6% of the "besing amount" (see, e.g., evidence records 392), and P remitted the amount of KRW 110 million to the above L-related account, but the defendant stated that "P, as it was hard to gambling and carried out a betting amount of KRW 500,000,000 with KRW 10,000,000,000,000 won, is about KRW 523,000,000,000,000 won (see, e.g., evidence records 523, however, evidence records).