게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
Seized No. 1.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (one year and six months, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, one year and six months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination 1 on Defendant A’s assertion that the nature of the crime is inferior in light of the course and method of the crime, the number of the game machine installed is large and the period of operation of an illegal entertainment room is limited to the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant. However, there are no records of criminal punishment except for the punishment of fines in 194 and 195, and there are no records of criminal punishment. In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, health conditions, motive leading to the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable, and thus, the allegation of unfair sentencing is unreasonable, based on the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, and health conditions; (b) and (c) all of the sentencing reasons indicated in the oral proceedings and arguments.
B. According to the record on Defendant B’s assertion, the lower court: (a) considered various factors of sentencing, including: (b) the inferior nature of the crime in light of the course and method of the crime; (c) the large number of games installed; and (d) the operating period of the illegal entertainment room expires; (b) the number of games installed during several times due to the same kind of larceny crimes; (c) some of the offenses committed during the period of repeated crimes; (d) the offenses committed during the trial; (b) the offenses committed during the trial; (c) the offenses committed; and (d) the thief and agreement with one thief; and (e) decided the punishment within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court; (b) there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court; and (c) considering the various factors of sentencing revealed during the oral proceedings, the lower court’s sentencing is too large to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
3. Therefore, the argument on unreasonable sentencing is without merit.
3. In conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal is reasonable, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.