The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of one year, 1 to 4, 6, 8 through 11, and 40 million won for additional collection) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). The fact that recognition of and reflects on a crime is relatively short of the period of business, and that a person committed a crime to support a child who is not good health and to raise hospital expenses and living expenses is deemed to have been committed in favor of others.

However, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance where the defendant operates a game room in which the head of his branch office was registered under the name of another person in preparation for the police control and illegally altered game products, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are inferior, the crime is committed in a leading and planned manner, the same kind of crime has been punished several times, and the crime of this case has great social harm, such as promoting the speculative spirit of the general public and lowering sound labor awareness, and there is a need to punish it.

The lower court determined a punishment in light of all the above circumstances, and submitted normal data, such as a written application for a bomb, with the family members who want to support the Defendant’s wife in the trial, but it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is a change in circumstances that could change in light of the content thereof.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime were committed, the lower court’s punishment is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem to be too heavy beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.