The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On December 19, 2016, the defendant did not submit a statement of reasons for appeal within the period for filing an appeal, even after being notified of the record of trial records of the court of first instance on December 19, 2016, and the submitted petition of appeal does not indicate the reasons for appeal, and even after examining the record, the reason for ex officio examination cannot be found [it is not a requisite attorney-at-law, but a case must be appointed as a national defense counsel pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, unless the defendant requests the selection of a national defense counsel pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act only after the period for filing the appeal is too excessive, and if the court decides to appoint a national defense counsel, it is not necessary to notify the national defense counsel of the receipt of the records of trial, and in such case, even the national defense counsel was given the same notification.

Even if the appeal period for the appeal by the national defense counsel is to be calculated from the date on which the defendant received the notice of the records of trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4114, Jun. 27, 2013). Therefore, the defendant's appeal should be dismissed by decision pursuant to Articles 361-4 (1) and 361-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the defendant's appeal should not be dismissed separately unless the decision of the court below is accepted by the prosecutor's appeal and the decision of the court is reversed as follows. [The relation of claims and obligations related to gambling in light of the circumstances stated by the court below is general to lend money on the premise that it will be immediately repaid or mortgaged at the site in light of its volatileness, etc., and the defendant lending money on a large scale as above without providing the victim with a security, leaving the site without an agreement on special repayment, and leaving the Republic of Korea for repayment after a considerable period of time is not paid back to a foreign country.

The judgment of the court below is justified.