2. It is recognized that the defendant's mistake is divided, and there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of not only the history of the crime subject to a fine, suspension of execution and punishment, but also the period of the suspension of execution. As in the instant case, the act of operating the illegal speculative game room, like the instant case, is seriously detrimental to the society, such as promoting a speculative spirit among the general public, thereby hindering sound work consciousness. Considering the size and business period of the instant game room, the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines set forth in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry). However, since it is apparent that the “Article 48(1)1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act” is a clerical error in the “Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act,” among the judgment of the court below, it is correct to correct it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure.