The judgment below

The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the third offense of holding D.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court (e.g., one year and eight months of imprisonment; Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of three years and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of two years as indicated in the holding), is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s decision on unfair sentencing by Defendant A is the time to commit the instant crime, and appears to have been detained for more than eight months up to the trial of the party concerned, and the Defendant appears to be against the depth. In addition to the punishment imposed by the same kind of crime in around 2007 as well as the punishment imposed by the same crime, there is no written punishment. The Defendant is responsible for supporting his mother, wife, and two children, and there is no room to deem that the motive for the instant crime is also about to impose living expenses, etc. favorable to sentencing.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant on the ground of Defendant D, a president around August 2012, in light of the following: (a) the nature of the crime was extremely poor, such as the Defendant’s participation in the operation of the game room, (b) participation in the operation of the speculative act by Defendant D, etc.; (c) the size of the game room operated by the Defendant was not large; and (d) the need to punish the commission of speculative act in order to encourage the Defendant to work in a sound manner in society as a whole; (b) the Defendant need to be punished with severe punishment; and (c) other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, background and environment, motive or circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The fact that Defendant D’s judgment of unfair sentencing was committed without being aware of the fact that Defendant D’s criminal act was committed in the instant case without being tried before and after the judgment was rendered is disadvantageous to the sentencing.

However, it is against the depth of the defendant being detained for three months up to the trial.