Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence against the Defendants of the lower court, as indicated below by the prosecutor, is too unhued and unreasonable.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor of October, 2 years of probation, 1 year of probation, 80 hours of community service, 30 hours of collection, 2 years of probation, 10 months of probation, 1 year of probation, 80 hours of community service, 30 million won of collection, 80 hours of community service, 30 million won of collection, 4 of confiscation evidence of the court below

2. Defendant A is an initial offender to determine the unfair argument of sentencing by Defendant B and the prosecutor. Defendant B has no criminal record exceeding the same kind of punishment and fine, and the Defendants recognize and reflect the instant crime.

However, since the crime of this case is serious social harm, such as promoting a speculative spirit and lowering sound labor awareness, the crime of this case requires strict punishment against the Defendants, the period of the Defendants’ participation does not short, and the total amount of gambling funds acquired from the crime of this case exceeds 1.5 billion won, etc. are disadvantageous circumstances.

There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial of the party, and in full view of the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, sex, family relationship, circumstances of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unhued so that it cannot be deemed unfair.

Defendant

B and Prosecutor’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the appeal by Defendant B and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[1. However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, Article 44(2) and (3) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry is apparent that “1. Collection” is a clerical error. Therefore, in light of the establishment and management entity of the illegal private Internet gambling site of this case, the role and service period of the Defendants, and the amount received, the Defendant’s criminal proceeds.