All appeals filed against A and E and the Defendant D by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of Defendant A, the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of Defendant E, the sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

C. In light of all the sentencing conditions, the lower court’s sentence (fine 5,000,000) against Defendant D is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination of the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant A is recognized as favorable circumstances, such as that Defendant A did not have a criminal record heavier than a fine for the same kind of crime.

However, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant A, his accomplice, and habitually gambling with his accomplice, and there is a need to strictly punish Defendant A with great social harm and injury, such as promoting a speculative spirit of ordinary people and impairing sound work consciousness. Defendant A played a leading role in the crime of this case; Defendant A played a leading role in the crime of this case; Defendant A was higher than 60 million won; Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, family environment, criminal records, criminal records, motive, means, means and results of the crime, and all other circumstances constituting the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment of the lower court against Defendant A is too excessive, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. The favorable circumstances are recognized, such as the recognition of Defendant E’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding Defendant E’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the depth of the instant crime, and the detention of the instant case, and the marriage consciousness with the matrimonial engagement appears to have been cancelled.

However, Defendant E is not only four criminal records subject to punishment for the same crime, but also the same kind of criminal records during the suspended execution period of imprisonment with prison labor for one year on December 21, 201 and with three years of suspended execution.