2. The judgment of the court below committed the crime of this case again after the Defendant had been interviewed by the police due to the previous offense committed before and after the judgment of the court below, and the nature of the crime is very poor, the number of speculative gaming machines installed in the game of this case is not small, and the Defendant promised in advance to conduct a job in the event of crackdown, and the Defendant made a statement at the time of the first police investigation. In light of the above, it is necessary to punish the Defendant strictly.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and goes against depth, except for the crime before and after the judgment of the court below, only one time the record of fine due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents exists, and the crime of this case is a crime that could have been judged simultaneously with the crime before and after the judgment of the court below, and the defendant's two times investigation into the police, the defendant himself is so-called the president and is unemployed E, and two years have passed since the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant seems to have committed a different crime, and there is no special circumstance or change that may be newly considered in sentencing after the judgment of the court below, and there is no other special circumstance or change that the defendant's character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below against the defendant is deemed to be proper.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.