2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s reflective nature, based on the following factors: (a) the instant crime was committed to the public’s spirit of gambling; (b) it is highly harmful to society; (c) the Defendant had been punished twice for the same kind of crime; and (d) the Defendant committed a crime during the period of repeated crimes of the same kind.

In light of all the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health, degree of participation in the crime, circumstances leading the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing decision was deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing decision exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led the crime in this case; and (b) the Defendant was in charge of leading or leading the commission of the crime in this case; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health, degree of participation in the crime, degree of

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

3. In conclusion, 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.