1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

3. However, for a period of two years from the date this ruling becomes final and conclusive.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the primary charges of this case, and sentenced the Defendant to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order.

B. Prior to remand, the Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on the grounds that ① mistake or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as to the requirements for establishing a common principal offender, ② mistake or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as to the application of Articles 47 subparag. 2 and 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act, ③ unjustifiable sentencing, the prosecutor filed an appeal against each of the lower judgment on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair.

2) The appellate court prior to remand rejected all the arguments on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and dismissed all the appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor.

(c)

The Supreme Court’s reversal and return 1) Defendant filed a final appeal on the grounds that ① mistake or misunderstanding of the facts as to the requirements for establishing a common principal offender, ② mistake or misunderstanding of the facts as to the application of Article 47 Subparag. 2 and Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act.

2) The Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for joint principal establishment.

However, with regard to the application of Article 47 subparag. 2 and Article 26 subparag. 1 of the National Sports Promotion Act to the Defendant, the judgment of the court below prior to the transmission was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on “a similar act” under Article 26 subparag. 1 of the National Sports Promotion Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The above part and the remaining part of the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case were sentenced to a single sentence on the grounds that the establishment of a gambling space in the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case was in a mutually concurrent relationship.

(d)

Therefore, according to the purport of this Court’s judgment remanded, the entire judgment of the court below constitutes the scope of this Court’s judgment.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant 1’s crime of this case.