2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). It is favorable for the Defendant to recognize the instant crime and reflect it, and the Defendant has no criminal record exceeding the same kind of crime and fine.

However, the crime of this case was committed in a systematic manner by the defendant's participation in opening an illegal Internet site and opening an gambling space in light of the period of crime, size of transaction, etc., the crime was not committed, and the defendant took part in the operation of the illegal Internet sports gambling site in Cambodia for more than two years, and the defendant took part in the charging and money exchange business, which is not simple participation, and the distribution of wages to accomplices, and takes part in the tracking role in the operation of the above site. The illegal Internet gambling site promotes speculative spirit to many and unspecified persons and undermines the awareness of sound labor, as well as it is highly harmful to society, and thus there is a need to punish the relevant crime.

The court below appears to have determined the sentence of the court below in light of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from those of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, and the equity in sentencing among accomplices, the lower court’s punishment is excessively heavy or unfasible.