2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case in the first instance, and recognized that the Defendant did not have the same criminal record, the period of operation of the game of this case is relatively short and the proceeds of crime seems not to have been much significant, and the Defendant’s wife’s health is not good due to the captain’s cancer, and the circumstances requiring the protection of the Defendant are acknowledged.

However, the crime of this case provides the game products not rated to customers while running the game of this case, and takes the business of exchanging the result of the game of this case as a business. Since the operation of the game of this case is highly harmful to society by promoting a speculative spirit of the general public and undermining the will to work, it is necessary to strictize it. As long as the defendant decided to have divided half of the profits of the game of this case and C, it is reasonable to see the defendant as the main figures of the crime of this case even if he did not go to the game, even if he actually operated the game of this case and the defendant did not go to the game of this case, the punishment of the court below is too heavy in full view of other circumstances, such as the defendant's age, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

3. It is recognized that there are circumstances such as the fact that Defendant C’s judgment on the grounds for appeal of the instant case recognized the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the same criminal history, and the period of operation of the instant game room is relatively short and the criminal proceeds could not have been significantly significant.

However, the crime of this case is highly harmful to society, so it is necessary to strictize it. The defendant is also with B.