Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The above seized articles are deemed to be subject to confiscation as stipulated in Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, since evidence 1 through 10, evidence 17 through 19, 21 through 24, and evidence seized by Defendant C, which are necessary means of electronic financial transactions, and are seized at the site of arresting the Defendants. If the Defendants were not arrested, the above seized articles are deemed to have been delivered to the operator of the illegal gambling site. Thus, the above seized articles are deemed to be subject to confiscation. Nevertheless, on the ground that the above seized articles are not subject to confiscation, the court below did not sentence confiscation against the above seized articles on the ground that the above confiscated articles are not subject to confiscation, and there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the above confiscated articles.

B. Defendant A- The above sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for "goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime" as objects that may be confiscated. The term "goods provided for an act of crime" refers to goods that have been prepared to be used in the criminal act but have not been actually used. As such, in light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Act is sentenced in addition to other punishment in addition to the conviction against the defendant who is convicted of a criminal trial, any goods shall be confiscated as "goods that are intended to be provided for an act of crime."