The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was not sentenced to imprisonment, confession and reflects the Defendant’s crime, and that the family members and branch members of the Defendant were the Defendant’s wife.

B. On the other hand, it is necessary to strictly eradicate the use of illegal game products since it is harmful to society by committing an act that encourages an excessive gambling spirit and undermines sound sense of labor, and the defendant is now previous. The crime of this case is committed in the same manner. Even after regulating the operation of the illegal game site from April 17, 2012 to April 19, 2012, the crime of this case is again operated at the same place even after the control, and the nature of the crime is not negligible. The size of the game site operated by the defendant is small, and the period is considerably small, and the period is considerable, and the installation of iron and CCTV, etc. is operated to avoid crackdown, and its several methods are not good.

C. The sentence of the lower court is reasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including equity with accomplices (K: one year and two months of imprisonment; one year and six months of imprisonment; three years of probation); Defendant’s age and living environment; motive, circumstance, and consequence of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.