2. In light of the fact that the crime such as the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, etc. is likely to cause harm to the society by encouraging the general public to commit an excessive speculative spirit, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant, considering the fact that there is a small scale in light of the number of game machines provided in the game of this case and the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime, etc., there is a need to strictly punish the defendant.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant is working as a shipping company without engaging in the game room business; (c) the Defendant has no record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence or a heavier punishment due to the same type of crime; (d) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for B, who is an unemployed owner of the instant crime; and (e) other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, conditions before and after the instant crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair.

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