Defendant

All appeals filed by C, D, E, and F and the Prosecutor’s Defendant A and G are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s respective sentences against the Defendants C, D, E, and F (unfair sentencing) (hereinafter each fine of KRW 2,00,000) are too unreasonable.

B. (1) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) against the Prosecutor (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair. It is so unfair that the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (a year and two months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, confiscation, 56,697,000 additional collection)

In particular, the lower court calculated the additional collection amount by deducting points from the sales amount, but the points have been actually exchanged.

Since there is no ground to view that the collection amount by the court below is unfair.

(2) In full view of Defendant G (misunderstanding of facts) and the police statements by Defendant G and other employees, and the prosecutor’s statements by the prosecution, the court below found Defendant G not guilty of the facts charged in this case, but erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendants C, D, E, and F’s argument of the unfair sentencing, the Defendants recognized the facts of the crime and reflects the depth thereof, the Defendants’ participation is relatively minor, and the defendants C did not have any specific criminal record other than the punishment once by fine, and the defendants D, E, and F did not have any record of criminal punishment. However, considering the contents of the crime in this case and the social adverse effects caused thereby, the crime is not easy in light of the nature of the crime in this case, the period of the crime is not short, and other various circumstances, including the defendants’ age, sex and environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for the punishment indicated in the record, are considered as inappropriate since each of the court below’s punishment against the defendants is too excessive. Thus, the defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing against Defendant A, the Defendant was in charge of the instant crime as the head of the game room, and the size of the game room.