2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake is favorable to the Defendant.

However, there is a need to strictly punish the instant crime because the instant crime encouragess the general public to commit an excessive speculative spirit and does not eradicate continuous crackdowns. ② The Defendant was in charge of guiding customers, exchanging, and settling accounts in the horse race track located in the building; ③ the Defendant had the record of being subject to the punishment of the suspended execution twice due to the same crime; ③ the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes repeatedly without being informed of it during the suspended execution period; ④ In particular, the Defendant was subject to the police investigation on February 31, 2009 on March 31, 2009, and was under the police investigation on May 30, 2009, and the Defendant did not appear to have been aware of the age limit of the Defendant’s voluntary criminal acts, including the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was under the control of the crime related to the horse race track located in the building; and (b) the Defendant was unlikely to have been under the control of the police investigation on April 30, 2010; and (c) the Defendant was unlikely to voluntarily attend the investigation agency.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. in the 3th page 12 and 13 of the judgment of the court below is the Act on August 4, 2011.