All parts of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment (the imprisonment of the first instance court: the imprisonment of June, the second instance court: the imprisonment of the imprisonment of the prison labor of the defendant C) and the punishment of the defendant A, D, and E (the imprisonment of the defendant A: six months, the defendant D, and the fine of one million won) that the second instance court sentenced to the defendant A, D, and E are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio (defendant C), the case of this court No. 2011No128, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the case of this court No. 2011No2046, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the procedure of the party hearing. Since the crimes of the judgment of the court of first and second are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first and second instances cannot be maintained any more.

B. Determination on the assertion on unfair sentencing (Defendant A, D, and E) is recognized that Defendant A’s mistake was recognized when the Defendant led to the instant crime. However, on the other hand, considering the fact that the social harm of the crime related to illegal game products is very high, the Defendant was punished for the same crime, that the Defendant was the owner of the instant game site, that the Defendant was the owner of the instant game site, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the period during which the Defendant operated the instant game site and the size of the game room, the Defendant’s argument is insufficient to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s argument is without merit. (2) The Defendants acknowledged Defendant D and E’s mistake while the Defendants led to the instant crime; (3) the Defendants were the first offender who did not have any criminal power; and (4) the Defendants’ participation in the instant game site as an employee of the instant game site was insignificant.

However, since the social harm of crimes related to illegal game products is very great, it shall be punished strictly.