The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: In light of the fact that it is difficult to expect to report the amount of revenue to the competent tax office while opening the illegal gambling site, and that a punishment imposed on the Defendant already becomes final and conclusive to collect additional tax of KRW 754,924,072 due to the crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.), etc., the sentence imposed on the Defendant (Article 1: 2 years of suspended execution and fine of KRW 450,000,000,000 per year, and Article 2 of the Decision: 75,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflected both.

Since the crime No. 1 in the decision of the court below is one of the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Opening Gambling, etc.)

In addition, the crime of this case occurred in relation to the above violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.).