The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor for not less than six months) of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The determination is based on the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and commits the instant crime against his mistake; (b) the Defendant appears not to operate the illegal game room directly; (c) the Defendant appears to have no economic benefit from the instant crime; (d) the equity in the case of being tried at the same time with the final and conclusive judgment; (b) the Defendant appears to have been given an opportunity to satise and satise the quasi-satisfy of punishment through confinement life for about three months; (c) the Defendant’s health is not good; and (d) raising the aged’s parents, mentally and physically, and is bringing up the Defendant’s family members of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s family members want to have satisfy the Defendant’s preference.

However, the crime related to the illegal game room is likely to cause serious social harm and harm, such as encouraging a citizens' excessive gambling spirit and hindering sound labor practices, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the illegal game room, and even in order to prevent the spread of the illegal game room, it is necessary to cut off not only the operator of the illegal game room, but also the person who facilitates the operation of the illegal game room. In this case, the defendant informed A of his advice about the operation of the illegal game room and introduced customers who had been aware of the operation of the illegal game room, and inform A of the tendency of customers. Thus, the crime is not less complicated because it is different from the form of aiding and abetting who works for an employee in the illegal game room, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year with labor for a violation of the Promotion Act in the Seo-gu District Court Support Industry on December 20, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 28, 2013.