The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below omitted the sentence of confiscation, even though the evidence Nos. 9 through 14, which was seized as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, is that Defendant B used in the operation of the game room and provided for the crime, is subject to confiscation. The court below sentenced Defendant B to two years of suspended execution of imprisonment in August, and a fine of three million won and three million won of evidence Nos. 1 through 8 of this Act against Defendant C, which is unfair.

2. Determination:

A. First of all, we examine Defendant B’s assertion that the adjudication of forfeiture was omitted.

According to the records, there is insufficient evidence to view that the evidence seized by Defendant B constituted the requirement of confiscation as stipulated in Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act and Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, it is reasonable to exclude Defendant B from the subject of confiscation.

Despite the fact that the defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, there is a large degree of criticism in that he repeated the crime of this case, and the head of the illegal game room may lead to a serious social abolition, such as encouraging the gambling spirit of people and undermining the desire to work, so that the defendant is in contravention of the relevant crime. However, as the crime of this case was committed in the judgment of the court below and the concurrent crime of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the defendant must consider the balance between the crime of this case in which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive and the crime of this case was committed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act at the same time, and the degree of participation in the crime is not significant, and all the various sentencing conditions and arguments are taken into account, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, occupation, circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that

B. It is reasonable to criticize Defendant C in that the Defendant committed the instant crime with a large illegality without being aware of the fact that he/she was a repeated crime due to a different type of crime.