All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment for Defendant A, one year and six months of imprisonment for Defendant B, eight months of imprisonment for Defendant C, and one year and six months of imprisonment for Defendant E) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the Defendants in collusion with a view to opening and operating an illegal sports discussions site. The crime of this case is highly likely to have been committed by the general public easily accessible to the general public, leading unspecified people to gambling through a considerable Internet site, thereby promoting a speculative spirit and lowering sound work awareness to the public.

The Defendants opened a gambling site and operated a gambling site by collecting operating funds as a kind of friendship and sharing the roles of each party. In order to recruit members, the Defendants made an advertisement on the Internet broadcast or paid subscription fees to the total board, and committed crimes systematically and systematically, such as changing the domain name address and office of the gambling site or using a variety of accounts under the name of family or person, in order to avoid the crackdown on crimes.

It is difficult to view that the Defendants’ criminal liability is essentially different depending on the period of operation or the amount of filling.

Considering these points, since these crimes have been active so far, it is required to punish the defendants corresponding to them for general preventive necessity.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendants as favorable factors for sentencing have already been revealed in the proceedings of the lower court’s oral argument, and there is no particular change in the situation in the sentencing guidelines and the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower court.

However, the part of the judgment of the court below which was involved in the establishment and operation of the “U” site as stated by Defendant A among the relics seems to be erroneous, but it cannot be deemed that the decision of the court below has a significant effect on the determination of punishment even if only the remaining points are considered,

The judgment of the court below is based on sentencing.