The judgment below

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

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and for each of the defendants C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (i.e., imprisonment with labor for one year and confiscation; (ii) imprisonment with labor for one year and four months; and (iii) imprisonment with labor for eight months and confiscation; and (iv) imprisonment with labor for each of the Defendants C) is unfair because it is too unreasonable for the Defendants to assert unfair sentencing (the Defendants A, C, and their defense counsel withdrawn their assertion of mistake as to each of the facts on the second trial date at the trial of the first instance court; and (ii) Defendant B and their defense counsel withdraw their assertion of mistake as to facts or legal principles on the third trial date at the trial of the first instance court at the trial of the first instance court). (iii) Although the lower court’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act against Defendant B by the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on Defendant B should be sentenced separately to other crimes under Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Financial Control Act”), the lower court’s judgment has an error of

2. Determination

A. B B’s “B” in the indictment No. 13 of the indictment No. 4 in the indictment No. 14 in the case of Defendant B and C as “C” and “B” in the same case of “B” in the indictment No. 14 in the indictment No. 4, in the indictment as to the establishment of a sports promotion (such as gambling opening) and a gambling space against Defendant B and C, prior to making a decision on the grounds of the above appeal ex officio, the prosecutor seems to be in error of “B” in the indictment No. 14.

"Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed, and since this Court permitted it, the part concerning B and C in the judgment of the court below could no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument of misunderstanding the legal principles as to Defendant A’s unfair assertion of sentencing and Defendant B by the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. The Defendant’s judgment as to Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing was given by the J et al. by providing a termed passbook through which the J et al. operated the instant illegal gambling site.