Defendant

All the judgment of the court below against C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ punishment (Defendant C: fine of KRW 6 million - fine of KRW 10 million - fine of KRW 10 million, and confiscation and confiscation of KRW 10 million, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and confiscation, and Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence against Defendant C by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant C and the Prosecutor, the appeal case against the lower judgment was consolidated by ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant C and the Prosecutor. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the lower court against the Defendant C is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the lower judgment against the Defendant C cannot be reversed in its entirety.

B. The judgment of Defendant B and D is favorable to Defendant B and D, with no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and there is a family member to support Defendant B and D, and Defendant B and D against their mistake.

However, the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act is likely to cause harm to the sound sense of labor of the general public by encouraging speculative spirit, and thus, it is necessary to strictize the degree of participation in the illegal game room operated by Defendant B, Defendant D has a strong history of having been punished twice as a single criminal act of the same kind (one time of suspended sentence of imprisonment, one time of fine), etc. In addition, the principle of equity with accomplices and there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that are newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment. Comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as Defendant B and D’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing indicated