The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the Defendant recognized the instant crime.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant invested 10 million won each with B and E and operated the illegal game hall, and exchanged the result, and continued to operate the game hall on one occasion, the crime of this case is not easy in light of the size of the game hall, the period of crime, and the game hall.

The defendant's participation in his criminal act is less than his accomplices.

However, according to the statement of C (the role of the second president) that the Defendant was in the position of an operator who invested with B and E and received profits from a neutral point of view, the Defendant calculated a daily allowance of KRW 70,000,000 during one month and paid KRW 2,10,000 to C, while he was in the position of other work, while he was in the position of the Defendant, he was in the position of the business president. Thus, the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the crime is somewhat less than other accomplices.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, even after the crime was committed, the Defendant appeared in the investigative agency to the effect that he was the president of the domestic corporation, and tried to conceal his crime, and thereafter, the Defendant continued to flee without being present in the investigative agency even though he was aware that D is detained by the birth of the Defendant and was punished by imprisonment.

In addition, the defendant has already been punished as a crime of opening gambling in relation to the operation of the game room, and there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the scope of discretion.