The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in October and ten hours of community service order, additional collection 11 million won in addition) is too unfluent.

2. We examine the judgment on the grounds of appeal. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant is not against the nature of the crime in light of the content, method, scale, etc. of the crime. The crime of this case requires strict punishment due to serious social harm, such as encouraging a speculative spirit and hindering sound labor motivation. The defendant's role of managing the site for about five months, such as inputting the result of his game at the local illegal gambling site in Vietnam for about five months, or responding to questions, and the degree of his participation is not relatively relatively less and less easily, and the participation period is not shorter than the participation period.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the facts of the instant crime for about two months, and was detained in the instant case for about two months, the Defendant appears to have sufficiently impaired the seriousness of the punishment for the crime of the instant gambling opening; (b) again, his family members want not to commit the same kind of crime; (c) there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the same kind of crime or fine, except for those punished three times due to the crime of assault, etc.; (d) balance with the general sentencing in the same or similar case; (e) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment; (e) motive and background of the instant crime; (e) relationship with the victim, means and consequence; (e) frequency of the crime; (g) likelihood of recidivism; (e) circumstances after the crime; and (e) family relationship; and (e) health conditions, etc., the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too appropriate and unreasonable; and (e) the prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant’s punishment has no merit.

3. Conclusion.