All judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of two years and six months, and Defendant B’s imprisonment of one year and six months, Defendant C, D, E, and F.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The first instance court deemed that Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles on collection, and misunderstanding of the amount of penalty, and misunderstanding of facts) did not appear to have reached KRW 138,887,94,323 of the amount of money transferred to the re-account in attached Table 1 of the first instance judgment in the instant gambling site opened by the Defendant. However, it cannot be deemed that the amount of money transferred to the said account reaches the amount of money given between the above accounts, or that the amount of money transferred to the said account reaches the amount of money given to the account that the Defendant did not participate.

The criminal proceeds amounting to KRW 8.2448 billion recognized by the first instance court of misunderstanding the legal principles on the collection of Sheshed and the criminal proceeds amounting to KRW 8.2 billion. As a result, the amount of criminal proceeds obtained by the defendant from the crime of this case is only about KRW 1.1 billion. The amount of criminal proceeds obtained by the crime of this case is only about KRW 1.1 billion. The punishment of the first instance (three years of imprisonment) of the punishment is too unreasonable.

B. The first deliberation punishment of Defendant B (unfair sentencing) (2 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C. (1) In the first instance court’s determination of the amount of KRW 199,00,000 as gains acquired by the Defendant, 5.4 million out of the amount of money deposited by the Defendant (300,000 won deposited as of September 18, 2013, KRW 5.1 million deposited as of October 7, 2013), the first instance court’s determination of the amount of penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty penalty

Shebly, the first deliberation sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) of the punishment is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant D, E, F, and G (i) The Defendants are merely those who jointly received instructions from the Co-Defendant A, and thus, did not bear the principal offender’s liability for the crime of the first instance judgment in relation to the crime of paragraph (1) (Ⅰ). The judgment of the first instance is in a substantive concurrent relationship by separately viewing the act of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the crime of the first instance separately.

However, it should be regarded as a single and continuous crime (for example, this part is limited to Defendant F, E, and G), and the collection charge is also similar to the degree of participation.