Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and for six months.

A. The punishment of Defendant A (the penalty of imprisonment for August, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the penalty of KRW 1640,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B1) Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, Defendant A is the person who led the commission of the crime. In addition, KRW 12,740,00, which was used for operating expenses, such as expenses for gambling refund, etc. among the surcharge imposed on Defendant B, should be excluded from the surcharge. 2) The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (the penalty of KRW 8,205,000,000,000,000) is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants by the prosecutor (the Defendant’s imprisonment for eight months, the suspension of execution for two years, the 1640,000 won, the additional collection for eight months, the 20530,000 won, the additional collection for twenty thousand won, the Defendant C, and the respective fines for five million won) are deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor, Defendant A appears to have led to an initial preparation role in opening and operating the instant illegal gambling site, unlike the assertion, (a) according to the account records in the name of Defendant C used by Defendant A from November 7, 2014 to November 13, 2014, it appears that there was a cash transaction flow similar to the operation of the illegal gambling site at the time; (b) Defendant B had or operated the illegal gambling site several times; and (c) Defendant A had or operated the illegal gambling site other than the instant illegal gambling site; and (d) Defendant A also acted with the awareness that it was involved in the operation of the said illegal gambling site by introducing the illegal gambling site different from the instant illegal gambling site to Defendant D, etc., in light of the fact that the instant illegal gambling site had been operated or had been operated at least at least at least before the instant illegal gambling site.

In the event that an illegal gambling site is operated to open gambling, it is highly likely to encourage speculation by allowing its members to gather more than a short period of time.