도박
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Defendant A’s appeal filed an appeal against the lower judgment on May 26, 2016. However, even if the receipt of the record of trial was duly served on December 17, 2016, Defendant A did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from that time, while Defendant A received a notice of receipt of the record of trial on December 17, 2016, and the petition of appeal does not contain any indication of grounds for appeal and does not find any grounds for ex officio examination on record
2. Determination as to Defendant B’s appeal 1) The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unreasonable for the lower court to have imposed the penalty (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million).
2) The circumstances are that the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the preparation for the opening of gambling, such as the intervention in the place of gambling and the solicitation of changing gambling, and that there was a criminal record of the same kind of gambling.
On the other hand, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the hours of gambling are excessive to about five minutes, and the fact that gambling did not gain any particular benefit due to gambling, and that there was no criminal conviction except for punishment as a fine for about 17 years prior to the punishment.
The lower court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 10 million, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, etc.
In full view of the matters on the conditions of sentencing and the applicable sentences in the trial, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.
There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.
In addition, considering the circumstances and results of the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the court below is appropriate, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable, even in light of the circumstances after the instant crime, age, sex, family relationship, etc.
Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, Defendant B’s appeal is groundless, and thus, Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Defendant
A’s appeal shall be dismissed by decision in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but it shall be decided as above against Defendant B’s appeal.