1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;

3. A seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant A) Defendant A (Defendant A) opened and operated the instant private sports soil site as stated in the facts constituting the crime No. 201 of the case No. 2016 higher group 201 as indicated in the lower judgment. However, as an employee, Defendant A was in charge of the storage and delivery of gambling funds.

2) Of 113, cash 291,00,000 won and 1414 through 121, both of the 141,00,000 won and 141,00 won, the Defendant cannot be forfeited from the Defendant merely because they are objects unrelated to each of the instant crimes by Defendant A or objects owned by AS.

3) Defendant A received an average of KRW 3.5 million each month from the operator of the instant private sports soil site, and deposited part of the gambling proceeds received from R, etc. into the bank account of Defendant A’s name and deposited them into the bank account of Defendant A, upon receipt of an instruction from the said operator via D and AT to deposit them into the specific account, Defendant A transferred the money in accordance with the instruction. As such, the amount transferred to the specific account under the direction of the operator and the amount equivalent to the above salary KRW 73.5 million should be deducted from the additional collection charge against Defendant A.

B. Sentencing 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, confiscation, additional collection of 950,357,214, Defendant C: Imprisonment of 9 months, suspended execution of 2 years, surveillance of protection, community service work 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2) The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the lower court against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A was not the actual operator of the sports soil site, and in light of the allegation that Defendant A was not the actual operator of the sports soil site, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is based on the name of K, etc. necessary for Defendant A to receive and withdraw gambling money and profit-making money from the private sports soil site of this case.