도박장소개설
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for three months.
Defendant
C.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the additional collection of KRW 15,00,00) of the lower court’s punishment (the imprisonment of April, the imprisonment of Defendant A, and the imprisonment of April, 15,032,00) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine the judgment of Defendant A on the grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment of Defendant A.
(a) Crimes for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crimes committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive shall constitute concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, with respect to concurrent crimes which have not been adjudicated among those under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, punishment shall be sentenced in consideration of equity with where the relevant
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209 Decided October 23, 2008, etc.). B.
According to the records, Defendant A was sentenced to the conviction of one month of imprisonment (hereinafter “relevant conviction”) at the Suwon District Court on May 4, 2016, due to the crime of injury, obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of official duties, assault, extortion, and attempted attempts, and then dismissed the appeal in the case No. 2016No3086 of the same court on August 24, 2016, and the appeal was dismissed on October 31, 2016.
According to the above facts of recognition, since the crime of opening the gambling place of this case is related to the crime of injury of related conviction on which imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment was sentenced, the crime of opening the gambling place of this case is related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the equity in the case of concurrent judgment with the crime of injury, etc. under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act shall be considered
Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the part of the defendant A is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. The crime against Defendant C is against the judgment of the court below, there is no criminal record of the same kind, and the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive.