2. In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was found to have committed the instant crime even though he/she had been sentenced to suspended sentence due to his/her previous department, despite the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of being sentenced to suspended sentence due to his/her previous department; (b) the Defendant’s commission of the instant game room business was large and organized; and (c) the commission of the instant crime using the speculative game room business requires strict punishment due to serious harm to the society, such as undermining sound labor awareness by promoting excessive speculative spirit to the general public; and (d) taking into account various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive and unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.