The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

D, E, F, H, I, J, M in each of eight months of imprisonment;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant K, P, Q and inspection gambling was not sentenced to imprisonment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The remaining Defendants except DefendantO’s punishment (Defendant D, F, H, P, and R: Imprisonment for 8 months, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of probation, community service for Defendant E, I, J, and Q: 10 months of probation, 3 years of probation, 240 hours of probation, community service for Defendant K: 10 months of probation, 3 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 240 hours of probation, 240 hours of probation, 3 years of probation, 240 hours of probation, 240 hours of community service, confiscation, and 10 months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although Defendant K,O, P, Q, and Q cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, which is not stipulated in the main sentence of Article 246(1) of the Criminal Act, with respect to Defendant K, P, Q, and prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the lower court imposed a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor on the above Defendants. As such, the part of the lower judgment against the above Defendants was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant K, P, Q, and prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, all of which are with merit.

B. As to Defendant D, E, F, H, I, J, M, and R’s unfair argument of sentencing, Defendant D, E, F, H, H, I, I, and J did not have any history of having been sentenced to a punishment exceeding a fine due to the same kind of crime, Defendant M did not have any history of criminal punishment since 2003, and Defendant R’s determination of punishment for the instant crime should take into account the equity between the instant crime and the case of opening a gambling place for which the judgment became final and conclusive on May 25, 2018 at the same time, and all the said Defendants would not be again committing such crime against their own mistake.

C. On August 16, 2017, T. 201, which committed a crime of opening a gambling place on January 25, 2018, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in prison in August 2018.