All appeals filed by A and C and by the Prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (two years of suspended sentence for one year and two months of imprisonment, probation, community service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) neither is deemed to have entrusted the gambling fund deposited in the account transferred by the Defendants between the Defendants nor the gambling site operator, nor can it be deemed as a consignment relationship to protect the said money under criminal law.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, that Defendant C embezzled the money owned by the victim E and the victim under the name of the gambling site operator.

Even if not, the court below's imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A and B (two years of suspended execution of one year and two months of imprisonment, probation, community service, 200 hours) against Defendant A and B is deemed unfair. 2) According to Defendant C’s manager E, Co-Defendant B’s statement, and part of Defendant C’s statement, the lower court acquitted Defendant C of the facts charged as to Defendant C, even if it was acknowledged that Defendant C’s post office account (Account Number: H) in the name of Defendant B from January 2016 to November 2017, by threatening Defendant C, a manager of “D”, and Defendant C’s partial statement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that Defendant C was not guilty of the facts charged as to Defendant C, even if it was found that Defendant C was aware of 23,00,000 won in total over 23 times from December 2017.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the following facts are as follows: ① the Defendants transferred the accounts to the operators of “D”, a gambling site, and received the proceeds thereof; ② the Defendants are “D”.