The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and G shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and three months and fine of 1,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles (Defendant A and B) deemed that the profits of the S convenience store was KRW 8.9 million per day multiplied by the 11-day value per business day, and that the profits acquired by Defendant A and B as a result of the crime of opening the convenience store gambling place by Defendant A and B. However, the profits of the S convenience store gambling place recognized by the court below were acquired by the above Defendants other than the statements made by the prosecution of the above Defendants and the unclear me, the meaning of the profits of the amount equivalent to the said money by the above Defendants.

lack of evidence to be determined by a person.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on collection of criminal proceeds, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months and fine of one million won, confiscation, additional collection of 48980,000 won, Defendant B: imprisonment for a period of eight months, confiscation, additional collection of 47730,00 won, Defendant D: fine of three million won, additional collection of 240,000 won, Defendant G: imprisonment for a year and two months, and confiscation) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning for appeal by Defendant A ex officio (part of the judgment below against Defendant A) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the case summary information of the investigation report (related to Defendant’s previous conviction) and the case summary information of each written judgment, Defendant A may be recognized as having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months at the Busan District Court on June 16, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 24, 2017. As above, each of the crimes of bodily injury for which judgment became final and conclusive and each of the crimes of this case are concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, considering equity and cases under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence against Defendant A cannot be maintained. In this regard, the part against Defendant A among the judgment below becomes final and conclusive.

B. Of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles still exists even if there are grounds for ex officio reversal.