2. The period for the crime of gambling is long, and the amount is a large amount, is disadvantageous.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant reflects, that only one fine is imposed, except for the punishment of a fine due to gambling committed at a similar time similar to the facts charged in this case, and that the defendant does not repeat a crime.

In addition, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background and consequence leading up to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair as it is so far as it ought to be reversed.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.