The defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment and one confiscation) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

We also examine the defendant and prosecutor's argument.

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is closely against the defendant, and that there is a family member to support the crime of this case are favorable circumstances.

However, in light of the serious social harm caused by the operation of the gambling game room, exchange activities such as the crime of this case need to be strictly punished.

In addition, despite the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine and suspended execution for the same kind of crime in 2007 and 2012, the Defendant again committed the instant crime in light of the fact that the instant crime was committed, and the nature of the crime is not less vulnerable in light of the benefit, period, size, etc. of the game room, and the Defendant appears to have led the instant crime as the owner of the instant game room’s business.

In full view of all the above circumstances and the fact that there is no special change in circumstances to change the sentence of the court below after the pronouncement of the judgment below, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case such as the background of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and environment, it is not recognized that the punishment of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus the defendant and

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.