The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that there are circumstances to deem that Co-Defendant A played a leading role in the instant crime, such as: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and reflects; (b) the Defendant had no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; (c) the period of exchange business using the instant game product is relatively short; and (d) there are circumstances that Co-Defendant A played a leading role

However, the Defendant, as the proprietor of the game of this case, was in a position of overall control over the management of employees and funds as the proprietor of the game of this case, and there is a need to strictly punish the game of this case as not only the promotion of the game industry and the establishment of a healthy game culture for the public, but also the social harm and side effects caused by speculation, and thus it is necessary to strictly punish the game of this case. The size of the game of this case is not small, there is no special change in circumstances to change the punishment of the court below after the decision of the court below, and there is no other changes in circumstances to change the punishment of the court below after the decision of the court below, and it is difficult to view that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, considering all the factors of the records and arguments

Meanwhile, the Defendant alleged to the effect that it is equivalent to the self-denunciation of the instant crime, and that it should be taken into account as a ground for sentencing. However, the details and course of the police’s investigation into the instant crime.