2. Determination

A. In full view of all the circumstances, including the confession of Defendant A to commit the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendant was a first offender with no criminal punishment, and that it is difficult for the Defendant to live as a physically disabled person, the period of running the instant game room business is considerably long, and the profits accrued therefrom seems not to be small. As the social harm caused by the operation of the instant game room is not small, strict punishment is necessary, and all other factors that form the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character, behavior, environment, occupation, details and contents of the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(In particular, the defendant is disputing the part of forfeiture of seized game machine, but as long as the game machine of this case is provided for illegal crimes of the defendant, it seems inevitable to confiscate it).

Defendant

B Although there are circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was not an operator of the instant game room, but an employee, and the Defendant was led to a confession, and that there was no past criminal record, the Defendant’s working period is considerably long, and there is no social harm caused by the operation of the instant game room, such as the instant crime, and thus, strict punishment is required, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, occupation, circumstance and contents leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is a sentence.