All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendants is unreasonable because each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, a suspended sentence of two years, probation, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its reasoning of sentencing, sentenced the Defendants to the said punishment.

The circumstances cited by the Defendants as the grounds for appeal are already factors that have sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment in the lower court, and there are no circumstances that need to be specially considered in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing.

Specifically, the defendants are able to recognize and reflect all mistakes.

Defendant

A has no record of criminal punishment in excess of the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and Defendant B has no record of criminal punishment.

In addition, Defendant B's participation in the instant case as an aiding and abetting offender is minor.

However, the crimes such as this case shall encourage the public's spirit of gambling and desire to work.