The judgment below

The parts of the defendant A, B, C, D, and E shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, C, and D shall be punished by imprisonment for each year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Four persons, including Defendant B, C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) concerning the opening of gambling as stated in the judgment of the court below, are the sole crimes of Defendant A, and four persons, including Defendant B, etc., committed gambling at a certain point, and there was no conspiracy between Defendant A and Defendant B, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant B and other four persons guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. Although there is a fact that four persons, such as Defendant A, B, C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant A et al.”) from October 11, 2012 to October 13, 2013, 2012, Defendant A et al. conducted Y and gambling in an annual gambling place, Defendant A et al., in collusion with five persons, including Defendant A et al., but there is no fact that Defendant A et al., conspired with Y to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A and other five persons guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The charges are not specified because the method of crimes in this part of the charges of Defendant A, B, D, and E are not specified. In addition, the lower court recognized that the Defendant and the defense counsel constituted five teams, including the Defendant A, and committed fraud against the Y, contrary to this part of the charges, in determining the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A, B, D, and E guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (Defendant F) by the Prosecutor, Defendant F conspireds with Defendant A and five others to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant F not guilty of this part of the facts charged, by misunderstanding facts.

C. Defendant A, etc., who committed a misunderstanding of facts as to habitual gambling from No. 4 of the decision of the court below.