All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one hundred and sixty hours of social service) and in particular, the community service order portion is too unreasonable in light of the present circumstances of the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In light of the following: (a) the instant crime committed on the market is likely to seriously undermine the transparency and reliability of the financial market; (b) high level of gambling; and (c) the nature of such crime is not weak; (d) the Defendant and accomplices committed the instant crime in a systematic and planned manner; and (e) the amount collected as the group of virtual futures trading exceeds KRW 12 billion; and (e) the period of operation of the futures trading site is more than one year, even if the Defendant participated in the instant crime, the degree of his participation is minor.

Even if it is necessary to make a severe sentence against the defendant, it is inevitable to make a severe sentence.

However, there are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects all crimes, that the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal record, and that there is a family member to support the defendant.

In full view of other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

Meanwhile, the Defendant sought a reduction or exemption of community service hours, but in light of the size and nature of each of the instant crimes, etc., the Defendant needs to have an opportunity to reflect his/her behavior and recover social responsibility through community service. Although the community service order for 160 hours may somewhat obstruct the Defendant’s living, the community service order may be sufficiently implemented to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendant’s living through consultation with the protective observation office after the conclusion of the judgment.