All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each sentence (a year of imprisonment for each of the defendants B and C, a suspended sentence of two years, a community service order of 120 hours and a fine of five million won for each of the defendants D) declared by the court below against the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendants in collusion with the private sports gambling site. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendants, and there is a need to strictly punish the considerable amount of social harm, such as promoting the gambling spirit of the people and undermining their sound labor awareness, and the fact that the criminal law is planned and organized is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, all the Defendants recognized the instant crime and are in profoundly against their depth. The period during which the Defendants operated the instant illegal sports gambling site is relatively short of five months, and the Defendants did not impose a relatively limited amount of KRW 160 million in total. In particular, Defendant D’s crime opened a passbook to Defendant B and C for the purpose of paying money for gambling. In comparison with other Defendants, the degree of participation in the instant crime is minor compared to the other Defendants. The Defendants appear to have failed to obtain any specific profits from the instant crime. Defendant D is the first criminal without any criminal punishment power; Defendant D has no criminal power over the same kind of power and suspension of execution; Defendant D has no criminal power over the remaining Defendants; Defendant D has no criminal power over the same kind of power and suspension of execution; Defendant’s life and has no criminal power over the remaining Defendants; Defendant’s age, family relation, criminal record, character and conduct, environment, means and method of the instant crime; and motive and circumstance of the crime after the crime, etc., were considered to be unreasonable to the extent that all of the Defendants’ punishment should be reversed.

3. Conclusion