2. Determination

A. Although Defendant A was aware of the fact that Defendant A would not repeat again while committing the instant crime, that the Defendant was faced with a failure in his business and economic difficulties, and that there were two children, Defendant A committed the instant crime. Meanwhile, Defendant committed the same kind of crime (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) on the other hand, despite the fact that Defendant had been punished for the same crime (violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc.). Operation of the Illegal Game Center is significant, such as promoting the speculative spirit of the people and undermining the will of work. In particular, Defendant A’s operation of the online game site as an illegal game game, which was in space, had been first controlled by changing Defendant A’s game to an ancient game machine, and continued to operate the game site again despite the first control, the period of operation and exchange of the illegal game site exceeds the short period, and the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, and all other circumstances before and after the Defendant’s criminal act were not recognized, the lower court’s argument that the Defendant’s punishment was unreasonable.

B. Although it is recognized that Defendant B’s criminal act reflects the wrongness while committing his criminal act, and that the Defendant lives while supporting the aged alone, the exchange act by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be less than the liability of the crime in light of the social abolition of the illegal entertainment room. The exchange period by the Defendant is less than one month, and the exchange period by the Defendant is not shorter than one month.