The judgment below

Among them, the part of additional collection against the defendant shall be reversed.

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

A. The prosecutor 1) The defendant and the co-defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the "A") before remanding the case.

(2) The Defendant appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, misunderstanding of legal principles as to additional collection, and misunderstanding of unreasonable sentencing, and all appeals filed by the Defendant and A before remanding. The lower court dismissed all appeals by both the Defendant and A, on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant and A appealed the final appeal, and thereafter, A withdrawn the final appeal. The Supreme Court rendered a judgment before remanding the Defendant’s final appeal on the grounds that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the amount of additional collection and the amount of additional collection provided for in Article 51(1) and (3) of the National Sports Promotion Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment

B. As to the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the scope of the trial court, A withdrawn it after filing an appeal, the part against A in the judgment prior to the remanding of the case was separated and finalized by the withdrawal of the appeal. Since the remainder of the judgment prior to the remanding of the case, except the additional collection against the defendant, is determined by the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case, the scope of the judgment of the court prior to the

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not know the existence of the illegal gambling site “P” and the “X” site, and did not have been involved in the operation of the said site, and it was unlawful and unjust to collect 470,8930,000 won from the Defendant even though he did not know that he was provided with the passbook for the operation of the said site.