1. The part of the judgment below regarding Defendant E and F shall be reversed.

2. Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and Defendant F.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, collection, Defendant C: one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and Defendant E: eight months of imprisonment, and one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and C, taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the said Defendants were breaking their mistakes in depth, the fact that Defendant C did not have much profits from the instant crime and did not have any criminal record of the same kind, and the need for strict punishment on the instant crime, the role in the instant crime, the background, method, and content of the instant crime, etc.

The judgment below

In full view of the following facts, including the absence of special changes in circumstances, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, since the lower court’s punishment imposed on Defendant A and C is too unreasonable, the allegation of Defendant A and C is without merit.

B. We examine ex officio the grounds of appeal by the above Defendants E and F prior to the determination of ex officio on the grounds of appeal by the above Defendants.

Since Article 32 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that "the punishment of accessories shall be mitigated to less than that of the principal offender," the accessories constitute a reason for the requisite mitigation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in determining the applicable punishment for the violation of the Korean Racing Association Act (Gambling, etc.) and the crime of aiding and abetting gambling space opening and aiding and abetting gambling spaces, and thus, it did not reduce the legal punishment pursuant to the above provision.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants cannot be maintained any more.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant A and C is without merit, and the judgment of the court below on the defendant E and F is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal. Thus, the judgment of the court below on the above defendants E and F did not decide on