국민체육진흥법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, Defendant B's imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant C and D shall be punished by imprisonment of 8 months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in the case of Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment for one year, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant C and D: 10 months, confiscation, and additional collection) are too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. A. The amendment of the indictment was made in the trial of the party, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that “a similar sports promotion right equivalent to approximately KRW 23,64,520,276 of the facts charged in the instant case shall be issued” as “a similar sports promotion right equivalent to approximately KRW 20,973,118,786 of the total sum shall be issued” among the facts charged in the instant case (as stated in 4.5 of the indictment), and since this court changed the subject of trial by permitting this, the judgment below was no longer maintained.
B. According to the records in relation to the calculation of the amount of additional collection against Defendant B, Defendant B was found to have been indicted for a specific period of time from June 2012 to June 2014 by advertising the illegal sports territory site of this case via the Internet at the domestic office leased by Defendant A from around June 2012 to from around June 2014, and operated the illegal sports territory site of this case as well as other accomplices, including Defendant A. However, the prosecutor brought the instant prosecution against only the crime committed from January 31, 2013 to May 24, 2014 during the above period. The lower court appears to have charged Defendant B with a specific period of time during which the details of the amount of additional collection of the money for gambling by the gold account of the above site were confirmed. However, the lower court did not err by including Defendant B’s total profits obtained from the operation of the sports territory of this case from around June 2012 to June 2014 to around 14, 2012.
Subparagraph 1 of Article 47, and Article 26.