A. The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because the defendant's punishment is too excessive.

B. Although the prosecutor (not guilty part) confessions the Defendant as to publicity of similar acts related to B site B and sufficient evidence of reinforcement is insufficient, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no evidence of reinforcement of confession by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence of this case as to the prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles in light of the records, the evidence of publicity about similar acts against other gambling sites is insufficient to take this part of the facts charged as reinforcement evidence, and there is no other reinforcement evidence to support the confession of the defendant as to this part of the facts charged. Thus, the court below is just to have acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, and there is no error of law as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the Defendant after the judgment of the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and in full view of the various sentencing grounds revealed in the process of the pleadings in this case, the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even considering all the

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.