A. Each sentence (two years of suspended execution in August, community service order, 160 hours of community service order, probation) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant A is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing between the two parties; the circumstances favorable to the Defendants on the argument of unfair sentencing (such as the confession of the facts constituting the crime of this case and the statement that the Defendants reflect their mistake; the crime of gambling openings, which was prosecuted, are only only once) and unfavorable circumstances (the defendant A was punished by imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act around 2008; the defendant B was punished by a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry around 2008; the defendant B was punished by a fine for the same crime around 2008 and 2010; it is highly likely to be subject to criticism again, and the defendants appears to have not received money in return for the opening of gambling); and the court below appears to have determined a punishment by taking into account the various circumstances into account, and there is a reason to view that the

In light of the following circumstances: (a) there is no change in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the instant case; (b) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (c) motive and background of the instant crime; (d) the total amount of gambling plates; (b) the frequency and duration of gambling; (c) the degree of participation in the instant crime; (d) the degree of degree of participation, means and consequence; (e) the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime; (e) general sentencing and balance in the same or similar cases; (e) family relationship; and (e) health conditions, each sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is deemed unreasonable or unreasonable; and (e) the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is with merit.