The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Certificates of seizure No. 34 through 37, 45.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding 1 of the legal principles on the establishment of a criminal organization and the number of crimes committed in the organization of criminal organizations and activities of criminal organizations) illegal online gambling sites, such as P (P), AA (AB), AC (AD, AE, AH), AF (AG), and AH (AH) established by the Defendant, were operated with other accomplices, and did not have continuous combinations or chains. Therefore, the crime organization was a crime organization.

In short, the lower court, which recognized such fact, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the gender of a criminal organization and an activity crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Although the crime of organization of a criminal organization and the crime of activities of a criminal organization are in a single comprehensive crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes of organization of a criminal organization and activities of a criminal organization, which determine the punishment by adding the punishment by deeming each crime as concurrent crimes, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the surcharge and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the surcharge, thereby adversely calculating the surcharge.

1) Since the amount of benefits received by accomplices falls under the distribution of criminal proceeds and should be collected from accomplices, and in fact, in criminal cases against accomplices, the amount corresponding to the benefits has been collected from accomplices, the amount corresponding to the benefits should be excluded from the amount that should be collected from the Defendant.

2) The lower court held that the Defendant 80% and AI 20% shares in “A site”.

In light of the above, the surcharge was calculated, and the defendant actually held 40% and 30% shares, and the above site's criminal proceeds should be calculated by recognizing only 40% shares.

3) Since a judgment of forfeiture of criminal proceeds from the instant crime was rendered in a criminal judgment against accomplices, the criminal proceeds already forfeited should be excluded from the amount to be collected from the Defendant.

4) Each of the instant cases.