All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of one million won, a fine of 30 million won, confiscation, and a fine of 5 million won) of the lower court’s punishment (e.g., a fine of 1 million won, a fine of 30 million won, a fine of 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendants led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; Defendant A had no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; Defendant A and C are an employee; the degree of participation in the instant crime is relatively minor; Defendant B was confiscated by the instant game machine and suffered considerable property loss.

However, Defendant B was in the position of overall control over the operation of the game site of this case as the owner of the game site of this case. Since the crime of this case is considerably harmful to the society, such as encouraging the gambling spirit of the general public and undermining sound work awareness, it is necessary to punish it strictly. The size of the game site of this case is not small; Defendant B and C committed the crime of this case even though they had been punished for the same kind of crime; there is no change in special circumstances to change the punishment of the court below after the decision of the court below was made; and there is no change in the circumstances to change the punishment of the court below; and there is no other factors to change the punishment of the court below after the decision of the court below; it is difficult to view that the punishment of the court below is unfair because of the following factors such as the age, character, environment, and

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. Conclusion.