(2) The defendant A explicitly withdraws his claim on the amount of additional collection except for the amount of unfair sentencing on the first trial date of the trial. However, he stated to the effect that the sentencing is considered).2. We examine the defendants' assertion on unfair sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). All Defendants recognize and reflect the crime, the period of the crime is relatively short, the Defendants’ benefits acquired are not much high, Defendant A appears to have committed the crime for the purpose of preparing the living expenses and hospital expenses for the families invested in the country, and the family members of Defendant A and Defendant B want to take the preference against each Defendant.

However, in the case of Defendant A, there was a record of being punished twice as the same or similar criminal acts, re-offending without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime, Defendant B had a record of being subject to criminal punishment three times due to the same crime committed in the game room that operated illegal game products as a money changers, and such crime is an unfavorable condition that there is a serious need for severe punishment of social harm, such as promoting the gambling spirit of the general public and lowering sound labor awareness.

The court below determined a punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that may particularly be considered in sentencing in the court.

In addition, the age, character and conduct, the environment, the motive and background of the crime, the means and result of the crime.