2. The judgment follows: (a) there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in the instant case; (b) the defendant reflects his wrongness; and (c) the period of operation of the game room is relatively long; (b) there are considerable social harm, such as encouraging the speculative spirit of the people and impeding their sound labor awareness; (c) the defendant is highly in need of strict punishment; (d) the size and profit of the game room in the instant case seems to be rarely high; and (e) the defendant repeats another crime only in one month, even though he was discovered by the first crime in the instant case, in light of the following: (a) there is little risk of repeating the instant crime; (b) the defendant has a history of criminal punishment including criminal conviction for the instant crime; (c) the age, character, and conduct of the defendant; and (d) the records and arguments shown in the arguments, even if considered, the defendant's assertion is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.