The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

7.5 billion won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

1. The entry of the documents submitted after the lapse of the period for submission of the statement of reasons for appeal shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, did not conspired with D concerning the instant crime.

B. In light of the legal principles, the act of issuing the right to vote for sports promotion or others similar thereto through an information and communications network is prohibited only when the amendment was made on February 17, 2012 under Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act, and thus, the part of the charge committed from June 201 to February 17, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case cannot be punished as a violation of the National Sports Promotion Act.

(2) The criminal proceeds earned by the defendant is not 15 billion won but 5 billion won, and only the amount equivalent to the above amount shall be collected from the defendant.

③ The facts charged in the instant case are not specified to the extent that the Defendant’s voting right to promote sports or issued similar things is not disadvantageous to the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense.

(c)

Article 26 (1) of the Act on the Promotion of Sports for the People in Violation of the Constitution prohibits the “issuance of sports promotion voting rights or any similar things” from issuing “sports promotion voting rights” is in violation of the statutory principle and the clarity principle by excessively broad and ambiguous words, and the Defendant is only equipped with a system that betting the outcome of sports games and divides property and property benefits according to the results. As such, applying Article 26 (1) of the Act on the Promotion of Sports for the People in Violation of the Constitution is contrary to the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation.

(d)

The punishment of the court below (the punishment of imprisonment of three years, fine of thirty million won, confiscation, additional collection of 15 billion won) is too unreasonable.

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, P, the “D” operated the illegal sports gambling site.

Before leaving China, “(3 books of evidence, 837 pages)” and “Before leaving China.”