A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The fact that illegal game room business, such as the instant crime, is detrimental to the people’s sound sense of work, and that there is considerable social prejudice, and that there is a need to strictly punish the illegal game room business as it does not eradicate continuous control, etc., is disadvantageous to the sentencing.

On the other hand, there is no record of punishment for a similar crime except that the defendant has been sentenced once to a fine due to a violation of the Public Sanitation Act, and the period of operation of the game of this case is relatively short.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant case cannot be deemed as excessive or unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.