Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself; (b) the Defendant’s health is at an economically difficult situation; (c) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes; (d) the Defendant cooperateed in the investigation, such as the game site unemployment week in the course of the investigation; and (e) the Defendant’s wife and his/her wife wanting to leave the Defendant.

However, the crime related to illegal games is highly harmful to society by encouraging citizens to commit an excessive speculative spirit and hindering sound labor, and thus requires strict punishment. The so-called "the chief executive officer" who is the defendant's role not only interferes with the proper exercise of the State's penal authority by preventing the actual owner of the game room from being subject to criminal punishment, but also allowing the actual owner of the game room to run a new game room business by changing the place where the defendant was not subject to criminal punishment. As such, the defendant's responsibility is not weak; the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the repeated crime due to this type of crime; the number of game machines and the size of the game room; there are unfavorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, motive, crime, consequence, circumstances, etc.; the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court for each of the crimes of this case; the place where the defendant was engaged in a new game room business (such as recommendations to use the game machine) and the scope of his/her participation in the crime (such as recommendations to use the game machine).