The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (a prison term of 2 years of suspended execution in June, and additional collection of 3.8 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant C (unfair sentencing) (the imprisonment of six months, additional collection of 7.370,000 won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below found Defendant A not guilty on the ground that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B and C to perform a speculative act or to neglect to perform a speculative act in the game in its holding, and contrary to this, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B and C is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances as indicated in the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, found that, in collusion with Defendant B and C, the evidence presented by the Prosecutor was insufficient to support the Defendant A to perform a speculative act or to have the Defendant perform a speculative act.

It is difficult to conclude that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the defendant A was acquitted.

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The prosecutor's above mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. In full view of the circumstances alleged by the lower court as the grounds for sentencing and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentencing with Defendant B shall be fully considered for the reasons for sentencing alleged by Defendant B and the Prosecutor.