A. With regard to paragraph 1-A of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant was only 100,000 won per day and is not the subject of opening a gambling house.

(b) A sentence sentenced by the first instance court (a decision 1-2);

(a) 2 years of suspended sentence in three months of imprisonment with prison labor, and 1-B of the ruling, 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor) are too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court’s first instance court’s judgment on the argument on the crime No. 1-A, the Defendant is found to have participated in the so-called “rawlsing” around October 2014 and received daily allowances. The Defendant’s aforementioned role should be sufficiently assessed to have contributed to the commission of the crime of opening a gambling place on October 2014.

Therefore, the defendant also bears the criminal liability as a joint principal offender for the crime of opening the above gambling place.

B. There is no change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing after the judgment of the first instance court on the unfair argument of sentencing, and considering the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the first deliberation sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable even considering the circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.