The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a year suspension of one-year period, one hundred and sixty hours of community service, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant has no criminal history subject to punishment heavier than a fine, and that he/she repents his/her mistake.

However, the Defendant has been punished for a violation of the Act on the Sound Records, Video Products and Game Products, and there was a history of having been sentenced to suspension of indictment for the same crime in 2010, and without being aware of the fact that the Defendant committed the same crime in the same place where he was prosecuted for the operation of the illegal speculative game site, and the nature of the crime is very bad, and the act of operating the illegal speculative game site in this case is very serious social harm, such as promoting a speculative spirit among the general public and hindering the sound sense of work, and thus, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee, considering all of the sentencing conditions and the circumstances after the crime in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition: Provided, That among the judgment below, each of the “Defendant” in the part 1 of the part 1 [2014 [2014 order 5139 [2] part 5139 [20 order 5139] and the summary of the evidence in the first part] and the first part of the judgment of the court below, “Defendant” has promoted speculation by means of influence” in the last part of Article 364(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

“Abandon” was “Abandon.”

Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is clear that it is each clerical error in the text of the statute, and it is apparent that the phrase “Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act” in the context of confiscation is omitted due to mistake. As such, Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is applicable.