Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A, 1, and 2, as to Defendant C, respectively.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable in light of all circumstances, including the fact that the Defendants are waiting to commit the instant crime and reflect in depth, the lower court’s judgment (Defendant A, Defendant C: imprisonment for August, suspended execution of execution of sentence 2, community service time 80 hours, Defendant B: imprisonment for 1 year), and the lower court’s judgment (Defendant I: imprisonment for 6 months, confiscation, and Defendant C: imprisonment for 6 months) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s suicide case, Defendant A’s competition with Defendant A, who was unemployed to run as if he were unemployed in the game room at the time of the crackdown, and Defendant A’s speculative act as a business by using a speculative recreation device around November 201; Defendant B and the head of the management division, in collusion with Defendant C, the head of the management division, engaged in a fraudulent act at the same place in the same manner and manner; Defendant A did not have the previous department; Defendant A acted as unemployed at the time of first crackdown on November 14, 2011, but it appears that the investigation stage was lower than the degree of participation of Defendant A in the crime on January 201, 201; Defendant A led Defendant A to a confession that he was not unemployed at the time of the first crackdown on November 14, 201, and Defendant A’s participation in the crime at the time of the crime in this case; Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, the circumstances of the crime in this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime in this case.

B. The illegal game room business, such as the crime of this case, is likely to undermine the people's sound sense of work and make the property frighten by causing severe social harm, and there is a need for strict punishment because it is not eradicated regardless of continuous control, Defendant B has the ability to punish one-time fine due to the same crime in 2010, and even if it was under the first control, it is still possible to crack down.