Defendant

1. A. The judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which did not collect the above money by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the object and scope of collection, on the ground that the money received by the Defendants as the principal offender was only a part of the criminal proceeds, but is merely a mere payment to employees.

(b) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, Defendant B for 2 years of suspended sentence: Imprisonment for 8 months and 2 years of suspended sentence; and

2. Determination

A. In light of the role, period of service, and amount received by the Defendants, the lower court did not order the collection of the said money for the reason that it is difficult to deem that the Defendants received the benefits of crime on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the Defendants received the benefits of crime as the principal offender during the criminal period and received the said benefits.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

B. We examine the judgment on the argument of sentencing and light, and the size of the business of the instant gambling site is relatively large, and the crime of the instant gambling site is likely to cause social harm, such as promoting a speculative spirit and hindering sound labor awareness. The Defendants are correct to the prosecutor’s argument that the liability for the crime is not less light by participating in the crime in China.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is accepted.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is rendered after pleading.

[The reasons for the judgment of multiple times] Criminal facts and summary of evidence shall be the court.