The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (five months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination is the circumstance favorable to the Defendant, that the Defendant recognized and reflected his mistake at a late time, and that the Defendant served as the so-called “imbrising” role of collecting and distributing the gold at a place where approximately one-hour gamblings are carried out, and the degree of participation in the crime is not much severe.

However, even though the defendant had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime as in the past, the crime of this case has been committed, and such crime is highly detrimental to society by inducing an unspecified number of unspecified persons to desire to work in a sound manner and encouraging excessive gambling, and thus, it is necessary to impose strict liability on the defendant.

In addition to these circumstances, in consideration of the following factors: various conditions of sentencing specified in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, and circumstances after committing the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee [the scope of recommended punishment], such as the establishment of a gambling place [the scope of recommended punishment] and the mitigation area (4 to 10 months) (special mitigation person], the mitigation area (4 to 10 months), it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too large.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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