The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that this judgment.

1. The appellate court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: four months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service order, Defendant B’s imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case committed by Defendant A was committed in collusion with E, etc. by establishing a false corporation to be used in the operation of the Internet sports gambling site, and issued an access medium, such as passbook, cash card, etc. connected thereto, and the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the liability for the crime was heavy, are recognized in light of the content of the crime.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects the defendant's mistake in depth, the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case is relatively minor, the defendant's wife's second class disability in the function of the defendant's wife is in need of care as a person with disabilities of class 2, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., and all other circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing specified in the argument of this case, are considered as unfair because the punishment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the above sentencing is unfair is justified.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with Defendant B’s first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing revealed during the argument in the instant case was too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, it is not unreasonable

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal is reasonable, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.