Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of four years and six months, Defendant B's imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant C.

A. When considering the following circumstances, Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which recognized the collection amounting to KRW 52 billion against Defendant A.

(1) The amount of additional collection recognized by the lower court with respect to Defendant A is merely obtained by the method of deducting the remaining Defendants’ amount of crime from the total amount of crime, and there is a logical inconsistency in the recognition method.

(2) Not only falls under the profits of co-offenders who are overlapping or not yet connected with the profits of the other co-owners, but also lack of evidence to prove it, except the defendant A’s vague statements, and ultimately, the defendant A’s criminal proceeds cannot be specified.

B) The crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (replacement, etc.) and the establishment of gambling space constitute a single comprehensive crime as a business principal, and even though a single act constitutes an ordinary concurrent relationship corresponding to several crimes, the lower court determined that each of the above crimes constitutes substantive concurrent crimes, and thereby, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the relation of acceptance of crimes.

C) The lower court did not take any measures for specifying the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the specification of the facts charged, even though the list of crimes, which are part of the facts charged, was submitted to CDs.

D) The lower court did not provide any reasonable and reasonable grounds when sentencing a sentence exceeding the maximum sentencing guidelines set forth in the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines. ② omitted Defendant A’s explanation of evidence on the criminal facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (a prison term of four years and six months, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 52,237,570,510) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendants’ act is not a similar act prohibited under Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act, but a publicity of similar act or a sports promotion voting right or similar act.