The defendant's appeal against the No. 1 crime in the judgment of the court below is dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court below, the second crime is committed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: D, C, and E, the victim of the crime of the instant public conflict with the Defendant, as well as D, C, and E, obtained money from A through this intent. Although gambling in which the Defendant participated is not likely to be friendly, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of gambling among the facts charged (the part concerning the second crime in the original judgment) is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and such punishment (the first crime in the original judgment is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and one million won for the second crime in the original judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The part of the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below (the fact that the crime was committed in question) of this case was committed by sharing roles among accomplices under a close plan prepared in advance and attracting victims to gambling, and using it is not sufficient to commit a crime in light of intelligent and planned criminal acts, and the amount of damage is reasonable, and the role of the defendant in the course of the crime is also difficult to be considered to the extent of simple participation.

On the other hand, even though the defendant was guilty of gambling and is still under suspension of execution, he/she committed each of the crimes of this case with M et al., who is an accomplice of the above crime, and has to be punished corresponding thereto.

Therefore, the defendant agreed with the victims.

Considering the circumstances that are against or against, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable.

B. According to the statement of a witness at the court of the first instance (the fact-finding and the misapprehension of the legal principle) and the evidence examined and adopted by the court of the first instance, it is only possible to acknowledge the same facts as the facts of the crime of paragraph (1) in the judgment of the court below, and it is not recognized that the defendant conspireds with C, D, and E to commit fraud and acquired money from A. Therefore, C is a technician G from N in the police and the rest of the participants except A, there is no big problem in accordance with A's money.