The part concerning Defendant S and B in the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning Defendant B and C in the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the punishment of one year and six months sentenced by the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant S, the fine of three million won sentenced by the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant B, the fine of three million won sentenced by the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant C, and the fine of three million won sentenced by the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant C is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment ex officio (as to Defendant B), the case of this court 2013No398, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, was consolidated in the proceedings of the first instance. Each of the offenses against Defendant B in the judgment of the court below 1 and 2, in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained, since each offense against Defendant B in the judgment of the court of first instance is in relation to concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Although examining the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant S’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant S continued to commit the instant crime even though Defendant S had two or more illegal game sites opened and only one of them was regulated, and the illegal game room business has serious social harm, such as causing home wave by having ordinary people go against the suspicion of game, while there is a need to strictly punish Defendant S because it has not been easily eradicated despite continuous control. However, it is recognized that Defendant S recognized all of the instant crimes and is in depth, Defendant S has no criminal record of suspended execution or more, Defendant S has no criminal record of a suspended execution or more, Defendant S seems to have operated the game room, and it seems that the revenue is not significant without the actual period of running the game room, and it appears that Defendant S has been grossly punished. In full view of various sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as Defendant S’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means, and consequence before and after the commission of the crime.