The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A, Defendant B, in one and half years of imprisonment, and Defendant B.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendants is too unreasonable that each of the punishments of the judgment below (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection, and two years of suspended execution and additional collection in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The illegal gambling site of Defendant A and B’s judgment is highly harmful to the society by promoting the speculative spirit of the general public and impairing the awareness of sound labor. The trading size of the illegal gambling site established by the crime of this case is considerable, Defendant B was punished for the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and it is an unfavorable reason for sentencing. The above defendants are the defendants who have committed the crime in violation of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry. The above defendants are committed in the confession of all the crimes, voluntarily surrenders, the amount of the surcharge was paid in the trial, the degree of participation in the crime is minor rather than the principal offenders such as U, etc., the degree of involvement in the crime was detained for about eight months, the defendant B was detained for more than eight months, and the defendant A was not a criminal record more than a fine, and the first offender who did not have any criminal record

Sentencing (U: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment; 5: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 1 year and 1 year and 1 year and 2016No1499); considering the above Defendants’ age, career, family relation, economic situation, circumstances and motive leading to the crime; and all other matters concerning the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, the court below’s judgment’s punishment is deemed unfair, and the above Defendants’ assertion is reasonable.

B. In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on Defendant E, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In the case of Defendant E, there is no particular difference between the lower court and the sentencing conditions per instance, and even considering that the lower court sentenced Defendant E to a suspended sentence and the reasons for sentencing stated by the lower court comprehensively.