Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 32,900,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the prosecutor (Defendant A: the same as above)

Defendant

B: Imprisonment for 10 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of probation, community service, 120 hours, 36,741,000 won additional collection, Defendant C: imprisonment for 6 months, suspended execution, 2 years of social service, 80 hours of additional collection, 5,00,000 won is too unaffortable.

2. Determination

A. We also examine the unfair argument that the sentencing of the above defendant A and the prosecutor against the defendant A and the prosecutor's above defendant was unfair.

Defendant

A acknowledges and reflects the instant crime.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed in collusion with Defendant A's name in causing them to engage in a conduct similar to the horse riding voting, thereby paying property or property benefits to the enemy, pretending to obtain criminal proceeds, etc., and gambling using a racing conducted by a marina society is not good in view of the size, frequency, degree of participation, etc. of the crime.

Defendant

A has been subject to punishment for the same crime, and in particular, he committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime of the same crime.

In addition, considering the various circumstances, such as Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and theories of changes, the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too excessive or too heavy.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant A and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. In the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the part of the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing against Defendant B and C, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, they should be respected.