All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is too uncompared and unfair with respect to the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, and additional collection) by the lower court, while the prosecutor appealed each appeal by asserting that it is too uncompared and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, on the Internet site, allowed many unspecified persons to easily gambling through the Internet site, and the Defendants and the so-called illegal accomplices of “G” on the so-called illegal sports earth site shared their roles such as having servers overseas and managing the site, thereby committing criminal acts in a systematic and planned manner.

In addition, the defendant has played a leading role, such as fund management and investor recruitment, or participated in H's operation throughout the ten-month period, and the total amount of the Do money is not more than 13.2 billion won.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that the actual amount of profit accrued to the Defendant is only KRW 84,30,000,000, but the Defendant voluntarily stated that the criminal proceeds accrued from the operation of the website from June 2012 to September 2012, which is a part of the criminal period, is KRW 140,000,000,000, which is determined by the lower court cannot be deemed as excessive.

On the other hand, from October 2012, the Defendant had been engaged in the operation of sports gambling sites in a relatively normal life without being involved in the operation, and there was no record of punishment for crimes other than those sentenced to a fine for violating the Automobile Management Act in 2000.

In full view of the need for strict punishment against such organized crimes, the need to protect society from illegal gambling on the Internet, and other sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is difficult to accept all the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor within reasonable discretion.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is justified.