2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the determination of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized and against the instant crime.

The family members of the defendant want to take the action against the defendant.

However, the establishment of illegal gambling places is in need of strict punishment because there is a serious social harm, such as encouraging a speculative spirit among the public, hindering the awareness of sound labor, etc.

Despite the fact that the defendant had been punished for the same crime, he committed the crime of this case during the suspension period of execution due to the same crime.

The Defendant played the role of “warehouse” and led the Defendant to commit the instant crime, and operated the gambling hall for at least 50 days, such as not more than 15 accomplices.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

3. 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.