All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendants operated the instant gambling site from around October 2016, the lower court calculated the amount to be collected from March 2016 on the basis of the amount of money collected and the amount of money collected from the instant gambling site from around March 2016.

In addition, the amount of money deposited in some savings accounts unrelated to the operation of the gambling site of this case should be excluded from the amount of additional collection.

Therefore, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the collection part of the judgment below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the Defendant A: imprisonment of two years, confiscation, confiscation, 1,520, 342, 191 and the additional collection of KRW 2 years, 1,548, 012, 191) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly admitted and examined the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court: (i) Defendant B stated in the police and the prosecutor’s investigation that “from January to February 2016, he worked as an employee of the gambling site and operated the gambling site” (Evidence No. 2 Book 1322, 1398, etc.); (ii) Defendant A also stated in the police investigation that “from around 2015, he worked as an employee of the gambling site and started to operate the gambling site after taking over the gambling site in early 2016” (Evidence No. 2 Book No. 1320, Evidence No. 1320), and (iii) Defendant B participated in the operation of the gambling site for the first time in accordance with Defendant B’s solicitation around January 2015.

The Defendants were employees of the gambling site at the time, but the Defendants received and operated gambling sites from the operator for more than six months thereafter.

In full view of the fact that “” stated to the effect that the Defendants were operating the instant gambling site at the latest between January and February 2016, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants were operating the instant gambling site at the latest.

However, insofar as the Defendants cannot specifically specify the timing of operating the instant gambling site, they are favorable to the Defendants.