The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment and confiscation) of the lower court 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The running period of the instant game room is relatively short and the Defendant seems to have less profit gained from the instant crime.

However, even though the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime several times, the crime of this case has been committed again during the period of the same repeated crime.

In addition, the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, living environment, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the arguments of the court below and the political party, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (one year to three years and six months of imprisonment] / [the decision of the type] / the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines / [the decision of the type] / the provision, etc. of illegal game products / [the type 2] exchange, exchange, exchange brokerage, purchase [the special person] : the increased factor: the same repeated offense [the recommended area and the scope of recommendation], the aggravated punishment (one year to three years and six months] is not heavy.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.