[Defendant A] The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1), misunderstanding of facts (Article 2019No1874 of the facts charged: Violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Article 1874 of the Act: Violation of the National Sports Promotion Act) and the establishment of gambling spaces] Defendant “C” as stated in the facts charged on the website; hereinafter the same shall apply. Since the establishment of gambling spaces was not involved at the time of the establishment, the crime of opening gambling spaces is not established, and it is not subject to Article 26(2)3 of the National Sports Promotion Act and Article 26(2) of the Act should be applied, not Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act. (2) of the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Article 1: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, confiscation, additional collection, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The court of original judgment No. 1 and 2 rendered a judgment after completing separate hearings against Defendant A, and the defendant A filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the appellate court decided to consolidate the above two appeals cases.

Defendant

The crime of the lower judgment against A is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the first and second lower judgment against Defendant A among the lower judgment should be reversed.

As above, although the judgment of the court below has a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court, even if the Defendant did not participate in the site at the time of opening, in collusion with B as the presiding official of the site.