The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A 700,000 won, Defendant B 50,000 won, and Defendant C.

1. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants in summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the punishment shall be determined within the scope of the term of punishment which is necessary to be mitigated pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act as the crime committed against Defendant B constitutes aiding and abetting at its discretion. The judgment below erred by omitting aiding and abetting mitigation and determining the applicable punishment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B cannot be maintained any more.

B. The crime of this case committed by Defendant A and C was committed by a person who first 3 points out of the Defendants with a chemical speculation, and the person with a tension 3rd point 600 won in addition to 200 won in addition to the first place, and 200 won in addition to the first place. The crime of gambling was committed by the Defendants, and there is a serious social harm, such as encouraging excessive speculative spirit to the general public and causing the failure of home economy, and thus, there is a need to strictly overcome it, and thus, the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants are recognized.

However, in the process of promoting friendship, even if the Defendants were to be illegal beyond the extent of temporary entertainment in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the method of committing the instant crime, the scale and frequency of gambling, time, circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., Defendant C does not seem to have any criminal history, and Defendant A did not have any same criminal history, Defendant A was the first offender, the Defendants had a relatively sincere life, and the various sentencing conditions leading to the instant argument, such as the Defendants’ age and environment, are considered to be unfair.

3. In conclusion, the part concerning Defendant B among the judgment below is reversed ex officio. Thus, the part concerning Defendant B among the judgment below pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining Defendant B’s unfair argument of sentencing.