The judgment below

The remainder of the forfeiture and collection, excluding the forfeiture and collection, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and four months.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months, confiscation, additional collection, and Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of illegal gambling sites is likely to instigate the general public’s gambling spirit, and social harm and harm is very high, Defendant A and B play a leading role in the operation of gambling sites. Defendant A operated gambling sites for a longer period than Defendant B, Defendant C received benefits from the above Defendants for a considerable period of time and assisted the operation of gambling sites.

On the other hand, it is difficult to view that the Defendants are both aware of the crime of this case and reflects the fact that the amount deposited on the gambling site is larger than other similar cases. Defendant C does not focus on the degree of participation compared to Defendant A and B, Defendant A did not have the same criminal records and has no criminal records exceeding the fine. Defendant B had the past record of being sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same crime, and Defendant B did not have any criminal records exceeding the fine, except for about 10 years, and Defendant C did not have any criminal records exceeding the fine.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the balance of sentencing with the same kind of crime, the developments leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the age, character and conduct of the Defendant, and the environment, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is deemed to be too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants

On the other hand, Defendant B received KRW 15 million out of Defendant B’s KRW 40 million, and thus, Defendant B received a refund of the existing investment expenses, and thus, Defendant B actually obtained a benefit of KRW 2.7 million, not only KRW 4 million per month but also KRW 2.5 million per month, and thus, Defendant B acquired a benefit of KRW 2.5 million per month, and thus, Defendant B acquired a benefit.