The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the overall circumstances of this case, it is unfair that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unfilled, in light of the following: (a) No. 17 of the 200 hours per year and 200 hours per year and 200 hours per year and 3 June 3 of A1 year and A; (b) No. 8 through 120 hours per year and 120 hours per year and 2 years of D 14 through 16 of the 120 hours per year and 120 hours per February 2 years and No. 120 years and 16 of E 2 years and 80 hours per year and 21 through 24 months of No. 21 through F 24, 26 months, G6, 2 years and 3 years and 200 hours per year and 1 June 3, 196.

However, the Defendants interfere with the place of the crime and gambling technician, prepared for the commission of the crime, and shared the systematic role of gambling as if they were engaged in normal games, such as disguisedly and directly participating in gambling, etc., and committed the crime of fraud against the victims several times. As such, it is disadvantageous to the point that each of the crimes of this case was planned to commit each of the crimes of this case, and that the amount of damage therefrom reaches a total of KRW 70 million.

However, with respect to the crime of this case, which is a property crime of this case, the victim did not want the punishment of all the defendants at present. This constitutes favorable circumstances for all the defendants, and individually, in the case of health team, defendant A, B, and H, the involvement of each of the crimes of this case was led by each of the crimes of this case, but all of the mistakes was recognized and reflected in depth. In the case of defendant C, D, and E, there was a history of punishment for fraud as well as the same criminal power, and there was no general gambling record, even before the defendant C, D, and E, but all of the defendants C, D, and E had the opportunity of reflect while living in custody for three months, and the degree of participation is relatively minor, and in particular, the defendant E has no criminal power, and in the case of defendant F, and G, only one of them participated in the crime of fraud, and the age, family relationship of the defendants, and others.