2. The Defendants appear to have led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime. Defendant A did not have any other criminal record than the one-time fine, Defendant B did not have any previous criminal record, and the Defendants were in an economically difficult situation, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants are disadvantageous to the Defendants in terms of the following: (a) the Defendants’ discovery of private gambling places established in a private house with a high gambling level twice in a short time; (b) the nature of the crime was bad repeatedly committed; (c) the equity with other gambling participants for whom a summary order has been finalized; and (d) there is no change of circumstances in the form of the lower court’s punishment at the trial; and (e) the Defendants have no change of circumstances.

In light of the above circumstances and other various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.