All appeals by the Defendants and by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

misunderstanding the principle of prosecutor’s law on the summary of the grounds for appeal (as to collection against Defendant A), Defendant A, along with L, presumed to be the total responsibility for the operation of the illegal gambling site of this case, and acquired the benefit of KRW 900 million from the crime of this case (at least KRW 20 million, acquiring BMW car). Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not issue an order of collection from Defendant A, which did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentencing unfair sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment; 80 hours of community service order for 1 year; 2 years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment; 200 hours of community service order for 200 hours; 2 years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment; 120 hours of community service order for 1 year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A The above-mentioned sentence that the court below decided against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B The Defendant only prepared a legitimate game site business called “AR” and has no connection with the operation of the instant illegal gambling site.

The Defendant did not know at all of the operators of the instant gambling site, and did not manage the instant gambling site or store upon his instructions, or in collusion with them, operated the instant gambling site.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

C. The Defendant, in collusion with Defendant B, etc., did not install facilities to enable the instant illegal gambling site, and did not operate and manage the said site.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the facts charged of this case, although the defendant was the presiding official for profit or did not operate the illegal gambling site of this case in collusion with the presiding official for the purpose of profit, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.