All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A. In 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In calculating the amount of additional collection against the Defendants, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in calculating the amount of additional collection for the Defendants, as well as by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, even though there is no objective data to acknowledge the actual revenue of the Defendants due to the instant crime, and even if it is not so, if the amount of additional collection is deducted from the profits recognized by the court below for all expenses, such as monthly rent and food expenses, etc. for employees' benefits and apartment houses,

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment of a year and February, 35,000,000 won; imprisonment of a year and June, 80,000,000 won; imprisonment of a year and June, 80,000,00 won; and Defendant C: imprisonment of a year and six months; confiscation of items 1 through 45, 25,000,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio determination, the facts constituting the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act and the crime of gambling opened and operating a sports earth site without a certain qualification are similar acts under Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act, and at the same time, the Defendants opened gambling for the purpose of profit-making. Thus, the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act and the crime of gambling opened and opened gambling committed by the Defendants constitute multiple crimes and constitutes a commercial concurrent act under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by omitting entry as to the commercial concurrence in the application of statutes.

In addition, since the crime of this case can be recognized that the act of this case continues to be engaged in the same type of business repeatedly under the single criminal intent, it constitutes a single crime by universalizing it, the court below deemed each act as a separate crime and erred in treating it as a concurrent crime.

. The above.