2. The Defendants recognized all the facts charged of this case, each period of operation of the illegal game room is not long, and there is no other criminal conviction except two times after the suspension of indictment against Defendant B. Meanwhile, the Defendants’ crime of operation of each illegal game room of this case is highly likely to cause harm to the public’s sound sense of work by promoting speculative spirit, and thus, it is necessary to strictize it. The Defendants continued to commit the crime of this case, even though the “H gameland” was controlled by the police, the Defendants operated the “K Gameland” and continued to commit the crime of this case, there was a history of being punished one time a suspended sentence due to the same crime of this case, and there was a history of being punished by the Defendant A twice a suspended sentence, and there was no special change of circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court after the issuance of the judgment, and there is no other reason to acknowledge that the Defendants’ punishment is unfair, considering all the following circumstances in the records and arguments, such as the age, sex, environment, family relationship, etc. of the Defendants.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. As such, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da36444, Aug. 27, 2015). (Inasmuch as it is apparent that “ August 27, 2015” of the crime of the lower judgment is a clerical error in the “Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure,” the Defendants’ appeal is correct ex officio pursuant to Article 25(