All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) by the lower court (e.g., a fine of three million won, Defendant B: a fine of five million won) 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 the Defendants led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; the period of the instant crime is relatively short; the Defendants did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime; the Defendants’ 40 games using the instant crime were confiscated in entirety, and the Defendants’ prevention of recidivism was committed.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendants using game products, which not only interferes with the promotion of the game industry and the healthy game culture of the people, but also may cause social harm and side effects caused by the speculative disorder. Therefore, there is a strict need for punishment. Defendant B is the business owner of the game place, Defendant A is an employee, and Defendant A is not an employee and is not an employee.

In addition, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, economic situation, and various sentencing factors as shown in the present case’s records and pleadings, including the background of the instant crime and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit.