2. Determination

A. It is favorable for the Defendant to recognize his mistake.

However, the Defendant had two criminal records of gambling, and around October 2008, even though he had been sentenced to the punishment of two years of suspended sentence for the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act by operating the speculative game site, the Defendant installed five computers at the same time, and committed the similar competition act in this case, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's defense counsel is not the reason for appeal, but the evidence Nos. 19 through 23, which was confiscated on the first trial date of the appellate trial, alleged that it is not the object of confiscation because it is owned by F, not the defendant, and therefore, the accomplice falling under "the criminal" under Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to be limited to the person who is charged with the crime, and it is sufficient if the accomplice committed an act falling under the accomplice. Thus, such things owned by the defendant can be confiscated from the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5586, Nov. 23, 2006). Further, the judgment of forfeiture on the things owned by a third party other than the defendant cannot be held in relation to the facts which became the reason for confiscation in principle, and it does not affect the decision of the Supreme Court that did not have ownership of the third party. < Amended by Act No. 5135, Nov. 23, 2006>