Of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the crimes of subparagraph 2-B, c, d, e and 3 of the judgment with respect to Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the judgment of the court below, Defendant C1) was convicted of the facts constituting a crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act that Defendant A, etc. provided a gambling site for a total of 14 times from March 2013 to May 14, 2014 in the previous criminal case. The facts charged in the instant case (excluding Article 2-A of the facts charged in the original trial) are that the Defendant acquired a deposit passbook, etc. from a third party within the said period, and thus, res judicata effect exists on the grounds that the Defendant took over the deposit passbook, etc. from a third party. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal of the above facts charged shall be sentenced. 2) The judgment of the court below of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of the court below 1: March 2, 2013, and the imprisonment of the court below 2- Da, d, e and e: March 3) is too unfair.

B. As to Defendant A1’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) received a request from the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the bank of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the bank of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of

C. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the establishment of gambling rooms and gambling spaces due to the operation of Defendant A, B’s H, and I’s Internet site, K in the previous criminal case in collusion with Defendant A and B operated the above Internet site, and K was convicted of the crime that the Defendant C aided and abetted it, and K made a concrete statement of the participation of the Defendant A, etc. in the previous trial. The statement in the original trial of this case is highly likely to be false, and the Defendants included the above H.