Defendant

All appeals against B and E and the Prosecutor’s Defendant F and G are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B, B, and E (unfair sentencing) (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, and Defendant E: 10 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant F and G (an unfair sentencing for Defendant F and G) (an order of community service for two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, one hundred and twenty hours of imprisonment) is too unfford and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Regarding Defendant B and E’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, comprehensively taking account of the size of each game of this case’s game site, period of operation, method of operation, and the degree of participation of the above Defendants as business owners, Defendant B operated two game heads annually, Defendant E had been punished for the same kind of crime in 2010, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the age, sex and environment of the above Defendants, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the above Defendants cannot be deemed to be unfair because it excessively exceeds the scope of punishment against the said Defendants.

Therefore, Defendant B and E’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant F and G assisted the Defendants F and G to commit the crime as an employee; (b) Defendant F had been subject to the suspension of indictment for the same kind of crime in 2011; (c) there was no record of criminal punishment; (d) Defendant G has no record of criminal punishment; (c) the Defendants led to the confession of the crime; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing indicated in the record, such as the Defendants’ age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the said Defendants is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the prosecutor's sentencing against Defendant F and G is unfair.

3. If so, each appeal by Defendant B and E and the prosecutor’s Defendant F and G are without merit. Thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.