The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, with imprisonment of one year and four months, and Defendant B.

1. The lower court convicted Defendant A, B, and C of the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) by Defendant A, B, and C, of the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) by Co-Defendant D of the lower court, and of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

As to this, Defendant B, C appealed against the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor appealed against the part concerning Defendant A, B, and C among the judgment of the court below, and Defendant A and the joint Defendant D of the court below did not appeal.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below against joint defendants D is separated and confirmed, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B, C (Indubly unfair) and C (Defendant B: 1 year and six months of imprisonment; 3 years of suspended execution; 2 years of imprisonment: 3 years of suspended execution; 3 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Since Defendants asserted the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the instant crime, it is reasonable to view the amount they received from E as a distribution of criminal proceeds rather than a mere salary. Therefore, the lower court did not additionally collect criminal proceeds distributed from E, which was erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants asserting unfair sentencing (Defendant A: one year and four months of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, three years of suspended sentence, three years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, and three years of suspended sentence) is unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, C, and Prosecutor prior to the determination of ex officio.

With respect to the facts charged in this case against the defendants in the trial, the prosecutor added the "establishment of gambling space" to the name of the crime, and Articles 247, 40, and 40 of the Criminal Act.