The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months, by imprisonment for one year and by imprisonment for one year, and by imprisonment for defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which collected 17,600,000 won merely because the defendant's profit derived from the crime of this case is 5,00,000 won, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of additional collection charges.

B. The respective sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment for a year and six months; confiscation and collection of 83,00,000,000 won; imprisonment for a year and two months; confiscation and collection of 8,00,000 won; and Defendant C: imprisonment for a year and two months; imprisonment for a year and one year; and imprisonment for a year and one year and collection of 17,60,000,000 won) are too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant C’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

A. The cost of taxes, etc. paid in the course of the instant crime is only one of the methods to consume the money and valuables acquired in return for introducing the private horse operators, or to justify their actions, and thus, it does not constitute a deduction from the amount of additional collection.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 26, 2008).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant C stated in the prosecutor's office that "the amount of KRW 400,000 won per month (electric, gas, food, etc.) and other expenses (electric, gas, and food, etc.) was paid KRW 500,000 per month as office rent," and the defendant C can be recognized as participating in the crime of this case for 14 months from July 2013 to September 2014. Thus, the court below's judgment that specified the amount of KRW 17,60,00 [the amount of KRW 500,000 x 14 months x 400,000 x 500,000 won) calculated accordingly as profits of the defendant C is justifiable, and therefore, the argument in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the defendant C is not accepted.

3. In today’s society today’s decision on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, illegal gambling using the Internet is growing. Such online gambling is likely to undermine the sound sense of work and the life of the members of gambling participants and their families.