All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, and by imprisonment for four years and eight months, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the first instance court that asserted that Defendant A (i) was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the judgment of the first instance court, should be deducted from the amount confiscated in the judgment of the second instance while calculating the additional collection charge, and thus, the amount of the additional collection was calculated without deducting it. Thus, the judgment of the first instance court is erroneous in the misapprehension

D. The sentence of the first instance judgment on the defendant's argument of sentencing (the imprisonment of one year and eight months, confiscation, and additional collection KRW 400 million) and the sentence of the second judgment (the imprisonment of four months, confiscation) are too unreasonable.

B. (1) In calculating a surcharge, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to Defendant C (i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding confiscation and collection as follows, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to confiscation and collection.

① Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant received instructions from the “O” during the period of operating the instant gambling site and received approximately 30% of the total revenue of KRW 15,979,467,905 and distributed it to other accomplices or paid operating expenses, etc., the lower court calculated the penalty on the premise that the Defendant deemed the actual operator of the instant gambling site and the Defendant acquired the entire total revenue of the said total revenue.

② The lower court calculated an additional collection charge without deducting the forfeited portion from the amount to be collected in calculating the additional collection charge.

(3) In calculating a surcharge, the lower court calculated the surcharge after deducting only the amount of 400 million won imposed on the Defendant A from the total profits, although only the profit that has been actually reverted to the Defendant should be collected by deducting the profit actually reverted to the accomplice from the amount of the surcharge.

The second judgment of the court below, which argued that the judgment of the court below was erroneous and misunderstanding of the legal principles, is as follows.