The judgment below

The guilty portion against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A, Defendant B, in one and half years of imprisonment, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) erroneous determination of facts (the lower court’s judgment which acquitted the Defendants on the ground of the lower judgment at the lower court’s 1st week at the lower court’s 3th page of the original judgment) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the Defendants operated the instant overseas sports territory site, such as “M,” along with L, etc. during the period from August 2014 to June 2015 can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts in this part is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two years and two months, which the court below sentenced to the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing, are deemed to be too unjustifiable and unfair.

B. The above punishment sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial of a prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the burden of proving the facts charged is imposed on the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendants were acquitted on the grounds that the Defendants participated in the operation of the instant overseas sports site during the period from August 25, 2014 to June 2015, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants participated in the operation of the instant overseas sports site even during the period from August 2014 to June 2015, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e. the defendant.