폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the allegation that there was an error of law in misconception of facts as to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) shall not be a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal by the Defendant as the grounds of appeal or by the lower court’s ex officio determination
In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to gambling, is not a legitimate ground for appeal as it contests the part which the court below acquitted.
In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by exceeding the limit of discretion in sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.
However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment
2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s gambling act was merely a means role for committing a crime of common conflicts, and thus, it did not constitute a separate crime of gambling, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
However, the crime of extortion and gambling are different from the elements of the crime of extortion, and the crime of robbery does not involve gambling at a general level at the establishment of the crime of extortion, and it cannot be said that gambling is minor as much as it is not considered separately compared to the crime of extortion. Thus, gambling becomes the means of the crime of extortion.
The gambling act does not constitute a separate crime because it was absorbed into the crime of conflict.
Nevertheless, the lower court committed gambling.