beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2013.08.16 2013노487

총포ㆍ도검ㆍ화약류등단속법위반등

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months;

3. A seizure.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (one year of imprisonment; two years of probation; two years of probation; probation; one hundred and sixty hours of community service order; four months of probation; one year of probation; one year of probation; one year of probation; and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Among the crimes of this case against Defendant A, among the crimes of this case, the facts that Defendant opened a gambling place for profit for more than one year and received considerable profits, the nature and circumstances of the crime are very poor, and the violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act is against the control of guns, swords, explosives, etc., and the defendant's possession of air gun within the vehicle without obtaining permission from the competent authority, and the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant had no record of punishment exceeding fines for the same kind of crime, and there is no record of punishment for the violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, and the fact that the defendant recognizes all the crimes of this case and seriously reflects his/her mistake and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc., it is deemed that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit, and the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.

B. The Defendant B, C, and D’s crime of this case regarding the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is one of the very important crimes that the Defendants promoted speculative spirit by establishing or facilitating gambling places, and obstructed the people’s sound sense of work. However, Defendant B did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and Defendant C, and D are the same kind of crime.