All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence (the imprisonment of 10 months, confiscation and additional collection, and the imprisonment of 8 months and additional collection) declared by the court below against the Defendants 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants as elements for sentencing were revealed during the hearing of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered.

(A) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the degree of participation is less than that of a simple employee in the instant case. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant, with the position of the head of the business division, takes charge of the overall affairs of the game room instead of the president, determines the employment of other employees, and takes the role of managing them, the degree of participation cannot be deemed to be somewhat inappropriate. Furthermore, the instant crime is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, the process and motive leading to the instant crime, the circumstances leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., such as the need to severely punish the general public, by promoting a speculative spirit, and thus hindering the general public’s awareness of sound labor).

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.