한국마사회법위반
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment, fine 20 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. (i) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles should be deemed as confiscation and collection of punitive character. As such, the whole amount of horse racing tickets sold by the organizer of similar horse and the refund acquired by the other party should be subject to confiscation and collection. Even if it is a collection of profit-free nature, the Defendant stated that 20% of the printing amount would benefit, and thus, at least 143,925,400 won should be additionally collected.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the additional collection of confiscation under Article 56 of the Korean Racing Association Act is a profit-free nature, and held that it is difficult for the defendant to specify the profits gained by the crime of this case and did not impose the additional collection. Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles on the additional collection
The sentence of unfair sentencing sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Article 56 of the Korean Racing Association Act provides that property from similar riding voting shall be confiscated and collected as necessary.
In light of the fact that the purpose of the crime of habitual gambling in Article 246 (2) of the Criminal Code and the crime of gambling in Article 247 of the Criminal Code is to deprive all of the characteristics of confiscation and collection under subparagraph 1 (g) of Article 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment on the property generated by the crime of gambling in Article 247 of the Criminal Code and the crime of gambling in Article 247 of the Criminal Code, and Article 8 and Article 10 of the above Act, it is reasonable to view that
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007). In addition, whether confiscation is subject to additional collection, recognition of additional collection, etc. is not related to the constituent elements of crime.