1. The part of the judgment below regarding Defendant B and F shall be reversed.

Defendant

B (1) Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and three months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s unreasonable sentencing: Defendant A’s 1-A of the lower judgment’s decision.

(b).

6 months of imprisonment and No. 1 of the holding of the court below for each crime

D. The misunderstanding of facts as to each of the crimes in Articles 2 and 2 is unfair. (b) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts: Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts: (a) recognized that Defendant B was in charge of the management of the businesses of the president of equity interests, the management of the assistants, and the management of online gambling game programs, but it is erroneous that this is a fact-finding. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

With respect to the crime set forth in Article 2 of the judgment of the court below, three months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years and three months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime set forth in the judgment of the court below, and two hundred and thirty million won of additional collection are excessive and unfair. Defendant F’s defense counsel asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as follows through the summary of oral argument dated October 24, 2014. ① The court below calculated criminal proceeds for twenty-three months from August 201 to July 2013, based on Defendant F’s statement to the effect that average profits per month are KRW 10,000,000. However, according to evidence, online Sckema in this case is recognized as having operated a server from time to time. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above facts and calculating the amount of additional collection (this part of the grounds for appeal cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal because it was raised after the lapse of the period for appeal, but it cannot be deemed ex officio that the aforementioned increase of additional collection is not recognized.

It is recognized that the crimes are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act before the judgment of the court below.