All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of 133,50,000 won, Defendant B’s imprisonment of one year, an additional collection of 119,50,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances are favorable, such as the fact that the judgment of the commission of the crime is recognized, the fact that there is a serious error, and that the Defendants actively cooperate in the investigation after the arrest so that considerable part of the conspiracy of the Defendants and accomplices can be grasped, and that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine.

However, the crime of this case is an organized crime that operates an illegal sports soil site with a large server and operating office in a foreign country beyond the domestic judicial power. It is necessary to punish the general public by causing serious social harm, such as encouraging an excessive gambling spirit and impairing the awareness of sound labor, causing failure to the economy and family life of the general public. The amount of gambling funds is very large, the period of the crime is long, and the defendant has long-term. In particular, the defendants organized a large scale of the crime of this case under the direction of the general responsibility and prepared a thorough preparation for the crackdown of the investigative agency in a planned professional manner, committed the crime of this case, including preventing the crime, continuing the crime, destroying evidence, etc., even though they were aware of the commencement of the investigation, and the defendants were arrested while staying in a foreign country other than the domestic area, and the degree of their participation in the crime is insignificant by taking practical charge of the recruitment of members, counseling, advertisement, and the management of the account with illegal money deposited.

It is not possible to be said that Defendant A received the salary of KRW 250 to KRW 30 million per month, Defendant B received the salary of KRW 150 to KRW 30 million per month, and Defendant B received a considerable amount of criminal proceeds as piece rates, in addition to the payment of KRW 150 to KRW 30 million per month.

In comparison with the first trial, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first trial sentencing goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.