All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant C: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant D: imprisonment with labor for three months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following are the circumstances: (a) the Defendant stated against Defendant C that he was aware of the instant crime; (b) the degree and role of the Defendant’s employee who participated in the exchange business of the instant game product as an employee is relatively minor; (c) the first offender who has no penal power; (d) the period of business in the game room is ten (10) days; and (e) the profits earned therefrom do not seem to be high; and (e) the support of a young child is favorable

The operation of a speculative game room is detrimental to the general public's sound sense of labor, and there is a need for strict punishment, and the defendant is involved in money exchange business with a series of scores written in the customer's card, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of crime, means and consequence of crime, etc., and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant D’s statement that he recognized the instant crime and in depth reflects the Defendant’s depth, the period of participation in the instant crime is less than 10 days and the benefits acquired from money exchange seems not to be significant; there is no penalty power for the same crime; and there is no penalty power for the instant crime and the instant crime and the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special robbery) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court should be considered as favorable to the Defendant.

As a night money exchange, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have taken part in the crime of this case, and the degree and role of the Defendant cannot be deemed to be light.