The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (a prison term of one year and six months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects on the crime, the total amount of 250 billion won as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below seems not to have been involved in the whole of the above amount, and the considerable part of the profits is used as rent, employee's salary, promotional expenses, etc., and the defendant has no criminal record in the same way and has no record of punishment except for a fine since 2004.

However, the crime of this case is highly detrimental to the society, such as encouraging the gambling of the general public, impairing the awareness of sound labor, failure of home economy, etc., so strict punishment is required.

The Defendant, while acting as a domestic agency of the illegal gambling site, performed duties such as publicity of the site and the recruitment of members for a long period of two years and four months by taking over the passbook, etc. necessary for committing the crime, and transferred several offices, and planned and implemented the crime of this case.

Defendant

Even if according to self-recognition, the amount of money collected by the defendant exceeds 28 billion won by the members recruited by the defendant, and the amount of money deposited by the defendant's management account reaches 3 billion won.

In full view of the circumstances shown in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant did not organize or manage the subordinate organization of the said gambling site, or did not participate in the money exchange affairs.

Even if the judgment of the court below is appropriate, the sentence imposed on the defendant is proper, and the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, it is true.