The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance against Defendant A and the part against Defendant AI, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant AI operated the gambling site of this case. ① 525,50,000 won (AK: 193,000,000 won: 70,000 won: 51,000,0000 won: F: 37,500,000 won; A174,000,000 won; 274,70,000,000 won including office monthly income; and 363,50,000,000 won including the purchase cost of server; and 263,50,000,000 won including server, and 263,50,70,000 won were paid to accomplices; the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the amount of actual criminal proceeds acquired by the defendant AI from the crime of this case; 261,262,264,265,264,000 won and the remaining amount of money collected from the defendant's account of this case.

B. 1) The sentence imposed on Defendant A (the first instance judgment: the suspension of the execution of two years in prison in August, the second instance judgment; the suspension of the execution of two years in prison in August) and AJ (the suspension of the execution of two years in prison and the community service order 160 hours in the community service order) by the public prosecutor (the defendant A and AJ) and the lower court (the defendant A and AJ) on the defendant A (the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of 10 months), and the AI (the imprisonment of 2 years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio (Defendant A) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the case of this Court No. 2013No2518, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, was consolidated in the proceedings of the first instance. Each of the crimes of the court of first and second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.