Defendant

All appeals filed by A and B and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the above Defendants A and B (the two years of imprisonment, and the one year and six months of imprisonment) is unfair.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below) is sufficient to find the defendants guilty as long as the amount of KRW 400 million alleged to be the model use was deposited in the gambling fund deposit account within the operation period of the gambling site of this case. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the court below sentenced the defendants to the unfair sentencing (the defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment, the defendant B: 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, the defendant C: 2 years of suspended execution and the community service order 120 hours of imprisonment, the defendant D: 1 year of suspended execution and 160 hours of imprisonment, and the defendant E: 1 year of suspended execution and 80 hours of community service order in June).

2. Determination

A. Defendant A, B, and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing in this case, the circumstances favorable to the Defendants indicated in the argument of this case, which led to the confession of the facts of the crime of this case and statement that their mistakes are divided in depth. Defendant C, B, and C’s family members and branch members actively wanting to take an active care of and lead to active concern and guidance, and Defendant C and D appear to have an opportunity to sufficiently reflect their community service activities for two months in the original trial. Defendant C appears to have been endeavored for community service activities during the past, and Defendant C appears to have been able to have been faithful to their studies, and Defendant C may have an excessive difficulty in their studies. Defendant C, in the case of Defendant A, B, and D, Defendant C, and E are still under age of 20 first and second half, Defendant C, Defendant A, B, and D did not have the same criminal record and only have the same criminal record.