A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and additional collection for 1 million won, Defendant B’s imprisonment for 8 months and additional collection for 1 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. The portion of the lower court’s punishment, excluding the surcharge, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although there are favorable circumstances such as the Defendants’ finding of unfair sentencing as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, excluding the portion on the surcharge, the Defendants committed the instant crime again during the period of suspended execution, even though they were sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of gambling opening around August 2013, the Defendants again committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution, not only before the above suspended execution but also after the crime of habitual gambling. In addition, in full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too harsh or unreasonable, and the aforementioned arguments by the Prosecutor and the Defendants are without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the appropriateness of the calculation of the additional collection charges against the Defendants, Defendant B stated that each gambling board as indicated in the judgment below was paid a total of 2 million won per day (4 million won x 25% x 25%) (Evidence records 219 pages, 44 pages), but Defendant A made profits twice a day an average of 2 million won to 25 million won to 25 million won to 25% per day (=2 million won to 26 million won x 25% x 25%) as stated in the judgment below (Evidence records, 219 pages, and 44 pages), however, Defendant A made profits twice a total of 1 million won to 25 million won per day from the gambling board as stated in the judgment below, and based on the evidence that the court below merely received a additional collection charge of 25 million won to 200 million won x 25% x 25% x 25% of the records, the Defendants.