The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined that, among the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc., violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (such as gambling opening, etc.), and the crime of opening gambling spaces constitutes several crimes, all of the facts charged in the instant case constitute a mutually competitive relationship.

However, the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. among the facts charged in the instant case is identical from January 4, 2019 to the Defendant.

3. Until May, 300, by the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency, engaged in speculative activities related to lottery tickets without obtaining permission;

“On the contrary, the crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case is committed from March 1, 2019 to the same year by the Defendant.

3. Until May, 300, an act of offering property or property benefits to a person who issued sports betting tickets or similar things through an information and communications network and predicted the outcome.

"The above crimes are different from each other', so they are not the commercial competition relationship, but the substantive competition relationship.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the number of crimes in determining each of the above crimes as the ordinary concurrent relations.

However, if the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. in this case and the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) are deemed to be a substantive concurrent relationship, the upper limit of the punishment against the defendant would be higher due to the aggravation of concurrent crimes. As such, the ground of appeal that cited the judgment of the court below that recognized several criminal acts as a common concurrent relationship is causing disadvantages to the defendant, and thus, cannot be a legitimate

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do810 Decided July 9, 2004; 2015Do9049 Decided October 15, 2015, etc.). Ultimately, the Defendant’s ground of appeal on this point is a case in which the Defendant’s assertion in the grounds of appeal is not beneficial to the Defendant.