All appeals filed by H, I, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Prosecutor 1) Since Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are businesses of lending money, the said Defendants constitute a violation of the Act on Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users.

2) Each sentence of the lower court against Defendant D, H, I, and J (the Defendant D’s imprisonment is 2 years of probation, surveillance of protection, community service 240 hours, lecture of gambling therapy 40 hours, Defendant H’s imprisonment with prison labor for 7 months, 2 years of probation, surveillance of protection, community service 240 hours, lecture of gambling therapy 40 hours, Defendant I’s imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, and 2 years of probation, protection observation, community service, and gambling therapy 40 hours, Defendant J’s imprisonment for 8 months, 2 years of probation, protection observation, community service, 240 hours, and 40 hours of lecture of gambling therapy) is unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the court below against Defendant H and I against the above Defendants (the above same) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The circumstances that the court below, based on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake, stated in detail in its reasoning (the part of acquittal of the court below)

2.(c)

In light of the part of Paragraph A, B, C, D, E, F, and G merely with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the prosecutor conducted the business of lending money to Defendant A, C, D, E, F, and G.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. Determination 1 on the improper argument of sentencing between the prosecutor, the defendant H, and the defendant J did not have the same criminal record as the defendant D, and the defendant J did not have the same criminal record. The period during which the above defendants participated in the operation of the gambling site is very long, the above defendants are recognized and are against each other, and the above defendants' age, sex, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime are revealed in the arguments of this case.