The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for Defendant A, 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, community service, 160 hours of probation, confiscation, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of probation, community service, etc.) is too unreasonable;

2. Although the Defendants appear to be against the crime of this case, in light of all the sentencing conditions in the records of this case, such as the period of operation of the game of this case, profits acquired by the operation of the game of this case, Defendant B had the same criminal records, Defendant A had no criminal records, but had a criminal records of the same kind, Defendant A had a criminal records of the same kind, and Defendant A had a criminal records of a fine of 12 times, and Defendant A had a criminal records of a fine of 12 times, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions in the records of this case, such as the Defendants

3. If so, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, as the crime of this case is a violation of Article 44 (1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, profits generated by the above criminal act under Article 44 (2) of the same Act shall be confiscated, but if confiscation is not possible, the defendants shall additionally collect profits generated from the above criminal act. Since the defendants were to have the profits from the operation of the game room and the money exchange commission for the defendant Eul, the defendant A stated that the profits from the operation of the game room of this case (the defendant B stated that the sales generated in the operation of the game room of this case at the investigative agency for 48 days is the

(B) Defendant B stated that the profits acquired from the money exchange commission (the Defendant B stated that the profits earned from the money exchange commission is KRW 240,000.

(B) Although the court below failed to collect the penalty, it did not reverse the judgment of the court below on the ground that it cannot be sentenced to the penalty under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.