도박개장
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for eight months, each of the defendants B, C, D, E, and F shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, 8 months of imprisonment, confiscation, defendant B, C, and D, 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, community service order, 80 hours of probation, defendant E, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, probation, 80 hours of community service order, 80 hours of confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable;
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes to the indictment of this case as stated in the following facts charged at the time of the trial. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above ground for reversal ex officio is based on the above reasons.
Criminal facts
Defendants intended to facilitate L and M’s operation of gambling facilities in the opening of gambling facilities in Gangnam-gu Seoul Ndong A 402, and Defendant B, Defendant A, and Defendant A, according to L and M’s instructions, manage the overall operation of the above gambling facilities. Defendant C played the role of “kter” in managing gambling funds by exchanging chips acquired as a result of gambling with face value equivalent to cash and deducting and settling the chips acquired as a result of gambling. Defendant E and Defendant F, by preparing for vehicles, play the role of “lock” under the name “booming” in which gambling persons are moving back to gambling facilities and viewed as network outside the gambling facilities, and Defendant D, in successive collusion, intended to play the role of “drawing” in return for cards to gambling persons.
As seen above, the Defendants conspired from July 26, 2013 to August 15:40, 2013, with a table that allows the game.