Part concerning Defendant B and C among the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.

Defendant

B and C Imprisonment for each of the years and fines of 2,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants B and C’s common arguments (fact-finding, misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the law, and Sentencing) ① The Defendant promises the victims to assume 1/4 responsibility for the principal in a case where the victims suffered losses, and the principal is liable for the occurrence of losses.

There is no fact of promise.

② The transfer of money to the Defendant by the victims to the Defendant is merely a means of betting within the limits of their betting share, and the Defendants used the money that the victims remitted on behalf of the victims in line with their purposes and purposes. As such, there is no disposal act of the victim, and there is no intent of illegal acquisition of property and property.

(3) The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B and two million won of fine, one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C and two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B’s assertion (the summary of the argument submitted after the lapse of the submission period for the reasons for appeal) ① Defendant B and C are merely deceiving Defendant B and C to the fact that money can be ancillary to a high probability. As such, the relationship between the said deception and the victim’s act of disposal is denied.

② The intrinsic nature of Defendant B and C’s deception is the proposal of a criminal act, and it cannot be deemed that it does not constitute a breach of trust and good faith in relation to the victims. Therefore, it is not included in the deception of fraud or there is no relation between deception and disposal.

3) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court in Defendant D and G (unfair sentencing) (the suspended sentence of Defendant D’s imprisonment of 10-year, fine of 2 million won, community service and lecture for gambling treatment of 160 hours and 40-hours, the suspended sentence of Defendant G imprisonment of 2 years, community service and lecture for gambling treatment of 80 hours and 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

(b) the first instance of the prosecutor;