사행행위등규제및처벌특례법위반등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months.
seizure.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1 misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A) was employed by Defendant A, not the actual business owner of each game of this case, but merely managed the game room by receiving daily allowances as an employee, and conspired with F.
Although there was no fact that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by employing C or B as the business owner, the lower court convicted all of the Defendant A, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence (Defendant A, B, and Prosecutor) imposed by the lower court on Defendant A and B (Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and six months, and fine of three million won) is too heavy (Defendant A, B), or a sentence imposed on the said Defendants and the said Defendants C ( fine of three million won) is too unfeasible.
2. According to the records of the judgment on Defendant C’s appeal, even if Defendant C received a written notification of the receipt of the trial record from this court on October 14, 2013, Defendant C did not submit the statement of grounds of appeal 20 days after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The petition of appeal filed by Defendant C does not contain any grounds for appeal, nor can it find any reasons ex officio even after examining the records.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision to dismiss an appeal by a defendant C should be made. However, as long as a prosecutor makes a judgment on appeal against a defendant C, the dismissal of appeal shall not be separately decided and a decision shall be rendered concurrently.
3. In the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts (the defendant A) and the conspiracy in which two or more persons jointly process the crime is not required under the law, but only the combination of two or more persons to realize the crime through the joint processing of the crime. Thus, even if there is no process of the whole conspiracy, the conspiracy is not required.