A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part not guilty on the grounds) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant committed the crime of this case based on the habit of gambling.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the habitual gambling on the ground that habitual gambling cannot be recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Undue sentencing (guilty guilty part) of the lower court’s punishment (7 million won in penalty) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the crime of gambling on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant crime of gambling was attributable to the Defendant’s realization of the Defendant’s gambling habit, in light of the legal doctrine and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the legal principles and circumstances cited by the court below, the above judgment and conclusion of the court below are justified, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as asserted by the prosecutor, in light of the following: (a) the background of the crime of this case, the contents, frequency of the crime, the time of the crime, and the amount of gambling, which can be known by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. Circumstances favorable to the Defendant regarding the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing between the Defendant and the Prosecutor are as follows.

In the past, the defendant recognized the crime of this case for the first time, and is against the law.

Circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows:

The Defendant led the crime of this case by setting up the gambling place.

The Defendant committed the instant crime even in 194, 1995, and 2014, even though he had been punished by a fine for the same kind of crime, again committed the instant crime.

In addition, the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, career, environment, background and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.