The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

B and D shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant E) only controlled the Defendant’s attempt to return home while entering the instant gambling place and waiting for gambling, and did not play the role of so-called “rawlsing.”

B. The lower court’s sentence (each fine of KRW 3,00,000) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the statement of the police interrogation protocol against Defendant E, Defendant E’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that Co-Defendant G et al. of the court below committed an act of creating a gambling atmosphere with the knowledge that Co-Defendant G et al. al. al. al. gambling for gambling, and of lending money to the gambling participants or giving lessons, thereby facilitating gambling activities of the above G et

B. (1) Although the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants’ assertion (1) is deemed difficult to find the Defendant’s economic situation, the Defendant’s act as a so-called “rawlsing business operator” cannot be deemed to be somewhat weak in terms of the quality of the crime; the Defendant has criminal records sentenced to a fine of one million won due to gambling in 2000; the Defendant did not present the circumstances for changing the lower court’s punishment in the trial; and other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, health, career, and family relationship, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not deemed to be too unreasonable.

(2) The crime of this case committed by Defendant B and D is deemed to assist and abetting illegal gambling businesses with high social risk, and the nature of the crime is not weak, and it is found that it was systematically low by sharing the roles among many accomplices, but it is deemed that the Defendants, the first offender, are in profoundly against the mistake while committing all the crime, and that it is likely to result in the remaining crime that is economically difficult, and that the crime was committed.