All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, ① the lower court is in the relationship of a principal offender with other accomplices with regard to the instant crime.

The court rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant.

However, since the defendant did not have subjective and objective functional control over the defendant's intent to jointly process the crime of this case, it is difficult to view the defendant's act as an act of aiding and abetting the defendant's act as an act of aiding and abetting the principal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for joint principal establishment.

② The instant G site merely plays a role in charging game money or exchanging the acquired game money so that members can gambling at the same place by linking the overseas sports earth site.

Therefore, the act of operating a G site cannot be deemed to be “an act of providing property or property benefits (similar act) to a person who correctly straws the outcome by issuing the right to vote for sports promotion or others similar thereto” under Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by applying the above provision, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the National Sports Promotion Act, or by

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service time of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s assertion that the joint principal offender is not constituted. (1) Although the Defendant did not refuse to comply with the Defendant’s request, the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million with the operating fund of the illegal sports soil site, the Defendant did not act in collusion with D, etc. for sharing roles in advance, and did not have any fact that he operated the G site or invested directly.

2) The lower court’s judgment is as indicated in its reasoning.