Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, Defendant AI, AJ, AAK, AK, AL, AM, AP, 2, 3, and 4 of the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant AI 1) The misunderstanding of facts and legal principles did not take part in the crime related to illegal sports soil site. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to probative value, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant took charge of the key role, such as presiding over this part of the crime, and giving an instruction. The circumstances revealed by the lower court are insufficient to prove the guilt, but the use of it as evidence of guilt is not sufficient probative value.

2) The lower court’s sentence (a 3 years of imprisonment, confiscation) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant AJ and AK 1 in relation to the instant case, Defendant AJ and the lower court recognized that all of the amount of money deposited in the nine accounts of the instant facts charged was 86.8 billion won as gambling capital, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (Defendant AJ: imprisonment of 2 years, confiscation, Defendant AK: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

A1) According to the facts charged in this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (as to the judgment of the first instance court), the Defendant stated that he was involved in the crime from July 2015, and the aforementioned facts charged alone clearly identified the period of crime.

As can not be seen, the judgment dismissing this part of the charges against the defendant should be sentenced.

2) The Defendant is not guilty of facts (as to the lower judgment of the first instance court), and the Defendant requested Defendant AJ to commit this part of the crime because he did not have the address at the time.