The punishment against the above Defendants shall be imposed respectively.

A. Defendants: Unfair sentencing. B. each of them is unfair sentencing.

The prosecutor: misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the part which acquitted the defendants A and B of each fraud: the F et al. acquitted of the above defendants; the first instance court's measures which acquitted the above defendants of the facts are erroneous in misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment, such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of facts against the defendants A and B: Habitual gambling against the defendants A and B: The above defendants can be recognized as habitual gambling of gambling, such as gambling one million won on the Chinese plate and gambling up to the new wall). 2.

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, etc., the first instance court is justified in holding the Defendant A and B not guilty of each fraud and habitual gambling on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment, and thus, each of the above arguments of the prosecutor, which the prosecutor argued this issue, cannot be accepted.

B. Each of the crimes of this case committed by the above Defendants C and D on the assertion of unfair sentencing constitutes the mitigated area of category 1 of fraud type according to the sentencing guidelines, and thus, the scope of the recommended sentence is one year and two years and six months. Although the above Defendants were divided in depth and the amount of fraud is relatively small, the above Defendants were sentenced to a similar type of crime, and repeated the crime of this case during the period of repeated offense; the nature of the crime of the crime of this case is very poor; and other various circumstances, such as the above Defendants’ age, character, character, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case; the circumstances after the crime; and the risk of recidivism, etc., the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above Defendants, which was sentenced by the first instance court, is unreasonable.