The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime Nos. 1 in the annexed list of crimes in the judgment of A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence against the Defendants of the lower court (for the crimes No. 1 related to the crime table No. 1 in the judgment of the lower court, two years of suspended sentence in two months of imprisonment, and for the crimes No. 2 through No. 6 in the judgment of the lower court, six months of imprisonment, Defendant B, and C, two years of suspended sentence in eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1) Of the accounts transferred by the Defendants misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, Defendant A1 was used in the operation of the Internet gambling site except the “National Bank L” account in the No. 1 of the crime crime list in the judgment of the court below.

Although there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to prove it, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the part other than the above account among the criminal facts committed in violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (such as opening of gambling, etc.) and aiding and abetting the opening of gambling space, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the evidence of reinforcement, which affected

2) misunderstanding the legal principles on the number of crimes, each of the crimes committed by the Defendant’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (such as opening, etc. of gambling), violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and aiding and abetting the opening of gambling spaces is a single act of transfer of the access media, such as passbooks, and thus, in a mutually competitive relationship, the crime of aiding and abetting the opening of gambling spaces is recognized as a mutually competitive relationship only with the crime of aiding and abetting the opening of gambling spaces.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

3) Improper sentencing of the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A’s summary of the official residence [helping and aiding the establishment of a room and a gambling space in violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (hereinafter “site operators”)] in collusion with those who are under whose name the Defendants conspired to sell voting rights under the National Sports Promotion Act from July 29, 2015 to October 20, 2015.