The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the defendant led to confession and reflects the summary of the grounds for appeal, that the defendant inevitably operated a game room around September 201 in order to recover money invested by the police in the situation where the defendant opened the game room in July 201, and that the defendant does not repeat again in the future, the punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Taking into account the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, even if each of the instant crimes was committed on or around July 201, on the ground that each of the instant crimes was committed by the Game Rating Board’s alteration into a game product with contents different from those classified by the Game Rating Board on the ground that the Defendant was actually engaged in a business of exchanging the outcome obtained through the use of the game product, on the ground that it was discovered that the Defendant engaged in a business of exchanging the outcome obtained through the use of the game product on September 2011, on the ground that the Game Rating Board changed the contents different from those classified by the Game Rating Board to a game product for use by an unspecified number of customers, and provided them for use of the game product again on the ground that it was discovered that the Defendant committed the instant crime to make a false statement by having the Defendant run the actual game site at an investigative agency, and the quality of the instant crime is not somewhat good, and that the Defendant again committed the instant crime with the same type of punishment as the instant crime was committed by each of the Defendant, even though it was inevitable for the Defendant to have been punished for each of the same kind of punishment (hereinafter.).