2. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendants recognized the commission of a crime and reflects the mistake in depth, that there is no criminal record exceeding the same kind and fine for all the Defendants, that there is no health for Defendant A, that there is a family member to be supported, that social ties seems to be relatively clear, and that in the case of Defendant B, the profits from the commission of a crime would not be much high.

However, the crime of this case is a highly harmful crime that causes harm to individuals and society, such as promoting a speculative spirit of the general public and undermining the desire to work, by exchanging the result obtained through game products in the course of operating the game room. Since continuous control is not easy to eradicate, it is necessary to punish the crime of this case strictly. Considering the scale and duration of the crime of this case, the Defendants’ respective positions and roles, and other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is excessive to the extent that it is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.