The judgment below

We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

A sum of KRW 180,2350,00 shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Of each of the facts charged in the instant case, the part concerning the single crime committed by the Defendant [No. 29,30 No. 50, May 30, 2015, from May 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (such as opening gambling, etc.), hereinafter referred to as “instant facts charged”), among the facts charged in the instant case, has no other reinforced evidence in addition to the confession of the Defendant

2) In relation to the calculation of the amount of the additional collection, since the amount that the Defendant paid to the Japanese IDC Center, etc. from among the money received from the operators of the private sports soil site, it cannot be deemed that it actually belongs to the Defendant, it should be excluded from the calculation of the amount of the additional collection.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion that there is no evidence to prove the existence of the confessions in light of the relevant legal principles is sufficient if it is sufficient to acknowledge that the confessions of the defendant are true, not processed, even if all or essential parts of the crime are not recognized. Moreover, indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence, which is not direct evidence, may also serve as evidence to prove the facts constituting a crime. In addition, if confessions and reinforcements are consistent with each other, it is sufficient to prove the facts constituting a crime as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do2004, May 12, 2016, etc.), in light of the above legal principles, evidence of guilt is sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do2004, May 12, 2016). In full view of the evidence duly adopted by the court below, the defendant created a domain name as stated in this part of the facts charged, and provided it to the operator of the AM website and the operator of the AM website (hereinafter referred to as the above investigation record).