The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, and D among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B for three years, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, and D’s each sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant D: imprisonment of 2 years and 2 years, confiscation, additional collection, and additional collection) that the court below sentenced the above Defendants is unfair due to excessive and unfair (Defendant B explicitly withdraws his assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles at the second trial date of the trial of the court below). (B) Each sentence (Defendant A, B, and D: the foregoing, Defendant C: imprisonment of 1 year, probation period of 2 years, community service order of 120 hours, confiscation, and additional collection) that the court below sentenced the Defendants is unfair.

2. Determination as to the unjust assertion of sentencing by Defendant A, B, D, and Prosecutor

A. The crime of this case committed with common sentencing is highly detrimental to society by encouraging excessive gambling spirit and impeding sound work consciousness by facilitating the general public to have access to gambling.

Since there is a need for strict punishment, in particular, the fact that a sum of KRW 400 million is obtained from many victims by not paying the prize money properly, the fact that a number of borrowed accounts are used to avoid tracking the investigation agency, the fact that a person commits the instant crime in a professional and planned manner under the organizational role sharing, the fact that a person commits the instant crime in a professional and planned manner under the organizational role sharing with Cambodia and the domestic office, the business size of the gambling site is large and the period of the crime is not short, and the fact that a person fails to recover the defrauded amount is recognized as an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendants.

On the other hand, however, the fact that the defendants recognized the facts of the crime and against their mistake, and the person in charge of the leading role in the overall operation of the gambling site of this case appears to I and J are recognized as favorable circumstances to the defendants.

B. Defendant A explained the way to publicize the gambling site to his employees, and computers kept in the office to publicize the website.