All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. According to the records on the Defendant’s appeal, the Defendant was served on February 27, 2019 by public notice of the notification of the receipt of the trial record by the court of this case, and the Defendant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal by 20 days after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, even if the Defendant submitted the petition of appeal, the grounds for appeal are not indicated in the

Therefore, in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal of the defendant should be dismissed by decision, but as long as the public prosecutor's appeal is judged, the dismissal of the appeal should not be decided separately, and the decision will be

2. Determination on the prosecutor’s appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal was punished three times by a fine for the same kind of crime.

Nevertheless, the Defendant stated that he was unaware of the need for registration for the installation of a game machine, so it is difficult to view that the Defendant is against the truth.

A fine shall not be sufficient to prevent the defendant from repeating the crime.

In light of this, the sentence (2 million won of fine) imposed by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfasible and so it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.