A. The Defendants (unfair punishment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (an imprisonment of one year, two years, two years, probation, community service, 160 hours, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment of two years, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, probation, and community service order 20 hours, and additional collection) are too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) Defendant A was distributed KRW 204,086,748 out of the amount distributed by gambling actors; (b) Defendant B was distributed KRW 1,117,095,555; and (c) the lower court found that Defendant A was allocated KRW 5,840,000; and (b) Defendant B was given an additional collection from the Defendants after finding that the amount was allocated KRW 18,80,000 by Defendant B. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the additional collection or by misapprehending the legal doctrine. (b) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor asserted the same as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the prosecutor's assertion and its decision in detail under the title "the decision on the amount of additional collection" in the judgment.

B. If the following circumstances are added to the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor. (A) The police inquiry protocol against the Defendants is inadmissible pursuant to Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the Defendants denies the contents, and can only be used as counter evidence for the impeachment of the Defendants’ legal statement, and thus, it cannot be used as an active evidence proving the amount of shares distributed to the Defendants. (b) The contents of the Defendants’ statements among the policeR testimony that the Defendants investigated the Defendants cannot be used as counter evidence to prove the amount of shares distributed to the Defendants.