The part concerning Defendant A and R in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance concerning Defendant A and R shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the Defendants’ respective punishments [10 months of imprisonment, confiscation (Defendant A), and confiscation (1 year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation (Defendant A), eight months of imprisonment, confiscation (Defendant Q), one year of imprisonment, and confiscation (Defendant R)] of the judgment of the court below are too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the punishment against Defendant Q in the judgment of the court of second instance is too uneasible and unfair.

2. An ex officio judgment (Defendant A and R) first, the case of the judgment of the court below 1 and 2 against Defendant A was merged with the case of the court below 1 and 2 against Defendant A, and the case of the court below 2 are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Since each crime of Defendant A is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable for Party members to sentence one punishment for each of the above crimes in accordance with Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court below 1 and the judgment of the court

Next, the crime of gambling against the defendant R is a crime falling under Article 246 (1) of the Criminal Act, and its statutory penalty is a fine and a minor fine. The court below decided to punish the above crime and the remaining crimes against the above defendant pursuant to Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part of the judgment of the court below against the above defendant among the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be reversed in its entirety.

3. In full view of the judgment on the issue of unfair sentencing (Defendant Q) and the fact that Defendant Q committed each of the instant offenses during the period of suspension of execution, the above Defendant recognized his mistake, against himself, and agreed with the victims, and all other matters regarding sentencing as indicated in the records of the instant case, the above Defendant’s punishment against the above Defendant is deemed appropriate, and thus, the above Defendant’s assertion by the prosecutor is without merit.

4. According to the conclusion, each part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance against Defendant A and R is under the Criminal Procedure Act.