2. Determination feet, Defendant’s crime is an act detrimental to society, such as encouragement of a speculative spirit against the intent of the law that intends to establish a healthy game culture, and undermining sound work consciousness, etc., and the liability for such an act is not against the Defendant’s disadvantage.

However, it seems that the period for the defendant to operate the game room is not long, and the profits therefrom are not significant, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime, and that he reflects his mistake, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

Considering these circumstances, the lower court sentenced a punishment by escaping from the lower limit of the sentencing criteria (eight months), and comprehensively taking into account all of the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to a crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, which can be known through records and pleadings, the lower court appears to have been sentenced to the sentence that the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.