The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (i) the lower court’s sentence (i) the two-year suspension of the execution of the six-month imprisonment, the observation of protection, the community service order of 80 hours, confiscation, (ii) the Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, confiscation, and (iii) the Defendant C: fine of five million won is too uneasible.

B. Defendant B’s above sentence is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A and the C lower court determined punishment by taking account of all the sentencing conditions, including the following: (a) the Defendants are against all the crimes; (b) the Defendants did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine; and (c) the degree of participation in the crimes in Defendant C was not significant.

In full view of the facts and statutory penalty as conditions for sentencing in the first instance court, the judgment of the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There is no circumstance that the lower court’s sentencing is deemed unfair or that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the character and conduct, family relationship, the background and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is appropriate, and it is not deemed unfair as it is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's ground of appeal in this part is without merit.

B. We examine both the Defendant B and the above Defendant’s assertion.

The defendant introduced A to F who operates a private horse site, notified A of the ID and passwords necessary for the operation of the site, and settled profits on behalf of A, etc., and actively attempted to commit the crime of A, such as the settlement of profits, and the defendant purchased a private horse ticket on his own to stop committing the crime.

The crime of this case committed by the defendant is likely to cause speculative acts and harm the sound sense of work.

Furthermore, the defendant uses speculative gaming machines to play games.