The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding - The Defendant was in violation of the Act on the Promotion of Sports and the Electronic Financial Transactions in Public Offering, and the Defendant was committed only by establishing a limited liability company I and the limited liability company J with F and H as the representative director under the direction of F and H, and opening a passbook in the name of the juristic person, and the F and H did not know that the above juristic person’s passbook was transferred to the operator through G, and did not participate in the transfer.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in collusion with F, H, and G, transferred the foregoing corporate passbook to another person, thereby facilitating the operation of the illegal sports gambling site of the deceased and wounded persons.

In light of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted all of the charges of aiding and abetting the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (the crime of aiding and abetting the violation of paragraph (2) in the 2016 Highest 823 case as indicated in the lower judgment) and of violating the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions with F, H, and G (the crime of paragraph (1) in the 2016 Highest 823 case as indicated in the lower judgment).

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court stated to the effect that: (a) the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) F, an accomplice of the Defendant, was stated by the police that “At the time of the joint crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the crime of paragraph 1-A of the 2016 High Order No. 823 of the 2016 High Order No. 823 of the 2016 lower judgment), a false corporation was made in its name, the corporate passbook was opened, and the corporate passbook was made from the Defendant to the operator of the illegal sports gambling site; and (c) G, a co-offender of the Defendant, who is in charge of selling the corporate passbook to the operator of the illegal sports gambling site, was called “the Defendant F and H at the time of the joint crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.”