The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that, when considering various circumstances, the punishment of the court below (one thousand won of imprisonment for six months, confiscation, collection 19.5 million won) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor, in light of the contents and nature of the crime in this case, and the fact that the defendant repeats the period of suspended execution due to the same kind of crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant has been punished twice for the same crime (one time of suspended execution, one time of fine), and the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of suspended execution, and the defendant committed the crime of this case in collusion with the head of the party room business in collusion with the head of the party room business in a manner that lends or sells the speculative instruments such as the body poster game to more than 10 persons, and receives the distribution of profits therefrom. The period of business is not shorter than the period, and in the process, the defendant paid the regulated party room business fine on behalf of the head of the party room business.

However, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and against the defendant's wrongness through a nearby confinement life in the nearest five months. The defendant was arrested by the defendant as the game machine supplier around June 2012. The facts charged of this case was made up of last time based on the criminal judgment as to the previous criminal defendant's business owner, and the defendant showed the attitude of making a confession of and against the crime in the investigation process. The game of this case was provided within the game of this case for use in a small scale within the game of this case, and the character of the crime was not significant compared to the other games provided in large game of this case. The defendant collected criminal proceeds from the defendant; the defendant arranged the distribution-related days of speculative gaming machines; the defendant work by being employed in the commercial company; the defendant's age, character and behavior, and family environment as well as Article 51 of the Criminal Act.