All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, probation, social service, 80 hours, defendant B and C: each fine of two million won, defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) are too minor.

2. The judgment of the game of this case is considerably larger than 90 games which are installed in a size of 70 square meters. The defendants are in charge of their respective duties and duties and operated the game room systematically. In particular, the defendants A had three times of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and two times of punishment due to drinking driving. As a result of the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, the defendant A was under the influence of driving under the influence of alcohol with blood alcohol concentration of 0.162% in the unlicensed condition during the process of being judged as a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act. The defendant D was in charge of an important exchange act in the speculative act, which is disadvantageous to the defendants.

However, even though the defendants denied the fact that they had exchanged in an investigative agency, they are all recognized the crimes from the court below, they are first offenders, Defendants B, C, and D are employees, and Defendant B and C have worked in accordance with the direction of Defendant A, the president. Thus, the degree of their participation in the crimes is not more severe than fines. Defendant A does not have any punishment heavier than fine. Two times of the past records, which were punished as a violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, are related to the establishment of two game instruments that did not undergo deliberation at the party room operated by himself. The first time is related to the work of employees in the game room where the game machine was installed, and that Defendant D is a second degree disabled person, which is favorable to the Defendants.

In addition, considering all the sentencing factors prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, character and conduct, family relationship, etc. of the Defendants, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.