The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant that the Defendant reflects his/her mistake, the instant crime takes into account: (a) the Defendant engaged in illegal business by providing the Defendant with a game machine opened and altered as the owner of two game places or exchanging game scores; (b) the Defendant was punished several times for the same crime; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime at all times; and (d) other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., are difficult to view that the Defendant’s punishment is too large and goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.