All appeals filed by B, C, D, P, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B, C, and P 1 served as Defendant B, C, and P as the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant B, C, and P also assumed the role of “beat” or “beat” in the gambling.

Even if the above Defendants were only one person of the participants in gambling, they aiding and abetting the opening of a gambling place, apart from being punished for gambling.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous or erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant B and C: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service order and confiscation, Defendant P: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service order and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to Defendant Q), the facts that aiding and abetting the opening of the gambling place by Defendant Q to take the gambling participants into the gambling place, open entrance doors, or control the entry to prevent them from going out of the gambling place are sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment on Defendant D’s appeal (Submission of the Reasons for Appeal) and the records of this case, Defendant D filed an appeal against the lower judgment on December 5, 2016. However, Defendant D did not submit the reason for appeal within 20 days from the lawful receipt of the notice of receipt of the records of trial on December 23, 2016, even if it received the notice of receipt of the records of trial on December 23, 2016, and the petition of appeal does not contain any reasons for appeal, and even if ex officio examination, there is no reason for reversal of the lower judgment.

Therefore, the appeal by Defendant D should be dismissed by the decision in accordance with the main sentence of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the appeal by Defendant B, C, and P and the appeal by the Prosecutor against Defendant Q Q.