The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of one year and six months sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case by each of the following facts are established: (a) the Defendant committed a speculative act using speculative game products; (b) it is necessary to strictly punish the game site of this case because it undermines citizens’ awareness of sound labor; and (c) it does not cause serious harm to society; and (d) the Defendant installed 40-50 game machines and operated the game site of this case; (b) even if the period of business expires, the case is not less complicated in light of the size and operation method of the game site of this case; (c) the Defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he had had the record of punishment for the same kind of crime before, and (d) started to run the business again after August 31, 2011; (c) the Defendant asserted that he did not actually operate the game site of this case; and (d) the Defendant asserted that he was not the unemployment owner who actually operated the game site of this case; and (e) transferred his responsibility to

However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the period in which the defendant operated the game of this case was relatively relatively long, the fact that the defendant recognized all his own crime for the first time and against the mistake, the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment heavier than the suspension of execution except that sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime before, and the fact that there was a family member to support, the defendant's age, environment, family relationship, occupation, circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is somewhat unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal of this case is with merit.