2. It is recognized that the Defendants, who made a judgment, led to the crime of this case, led to confessions and reflects on the fact that the crime of this case was committed once, Defendant B committed the crime of this case with an employee working in the game room, and Defendant A is relatively old and Defendant B is relatively old and Defendant B is not healthy due to high blood pressure, etc.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendants in collusion with them to let them perform speculative acts in the game room operated by the defendant A, and the nature of the crime is inferior and the liability for the crime is not less severe in light of the methods and contents of the crime. The crime of neglecting to perform speculative acts is a crime that impedes the people's sound sense of work and encourages their speculation, and thus, it is necessary to punish them strictly. The crime of this case was committed once in the defendant A, and the defendant B had the record of being punished for the same crime three times in the defendant B, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendants' age, career, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., considering the circumstances that the children of the defendant B should marry around April 202, it cannot be deemed unfair because the defendant's punishment against the defendants is too excessive.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.