2. The court below, upon examining the defendants' unfair arguments on the sentencing of each of the offenses committed by the defendants. The court below sentenced the above punishment in consideration of the following favorable circumstances: (a) although the business of the instant speculative game room was a crime that causes serious social abolition, such as lowering the citizens' sound will to work; (b) taking the risk of punishment into account; (c) the defendants operated the game room in cash for economic benefits; (d) the defendants A was sentenced three times as a crime of opening similar gambling; and (e) having been sentenced one time as a fine for the crime of opening similar gambling; and (e) the defendants B was subject to punishment for the suspension of the execution of a sentence for the same kind of crime in 2014; and (e) the defendants B was subject to punishment for the suspension of the execution of a sentence for the same kind of crime in 2014.

In full view of the fact that there is no change in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court, other than the flexible and unfavorable circumstances taken into account by the lower court, and all other conditions of the sentencing, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s determination of sentencing cannot be deemed unfair to exceed the reasonable bounds of discretion or to maintain it as it is (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion 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.