A. Defendant A (unfair imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (Defendant E) did not receive KRW 2.8 million as operating profit of the amusement room, and the judgment of the court below which additionally collected this money is unlawful. (2) The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, it is recognized that Defendant A led to the confession of the crime of this case and the crime of this case as stated in the first head of the judgment of the court below and the crime of this case could have been judged as identical to the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, Defendant A was sentenced to a fine of one million won on or around October 2008 and was sentenced to a fine of one million won on or around April 2009 by running an illegal game room and being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on or around August 2009, Defendant A again operated the illegal game room. Defendant A was under investigation by the court below on the ground that Defendant A was under investigation by the so-called “the second president,” and Defendant A was under investigation by the so-called “B” upon the control of the game room, and it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is excessively unreasonable. Accordingly, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant E, Co-defendant A consistently stated that “A had 2.8 million won of the profits settled on the first day to the drinking house operated by Defendant E and Defendant E.” The Defendant E gave money to D as Defendant A performed work at the kitchen, and Defendant A stated that “Defendant A, with the first day’s settlement of accounts and money, made a talk with Defendant E as the sales amount of R points, and made a talk with Defendant E with the settlement of accounts (Evidence No. 409 of the evidence record),” and Defendant E also made an investigative agency.