도박개장등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 30 million.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s act of taking advantage of the loan certificate with the signature and seal affixed by the victims as the guarantor and the Defendant’s act constitutes only a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) (hereinafter referred to as “joint violation”), and thus, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint coercion) is not established separately.
B. The lower court’s sentence of one year and two months of imprisonment imposed on the Defendant and a fine of one million won is too unreasonable.
2. The lower court on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine: “The Defendant, jointly with the J, detained the victims, thereby having the victims pay KRW 16 million up to December 21, 2012.”
“The” requires the victims to sign and seal as a surety on the loan certificate to perform a non-obligatory act, and from that time until January 4, 2013, the victims were issued with a total of KRW 9.2 million from the victims, and the victims were forced to withdraw from the loan certificate after being issued five million won.
"The defendant, after receiving a loan certificate from the victims, recognized that he received money from the victims, and recognized that he committed each crime of coercion, joint conflict, and joint failure to commit a crime, and committed the above crimes as substantive concurrent crimes.
If the principal criminal intent of the defendant was to take out money lost by I from the victims of gambling, the defendant shall be deemed to have continued to take out the loan certificate after signing and sealing it as the surety under the single public conflict with the victim, once by means of the routing, and the defendant's act shall be deemed to have continued to be a routing act based on this. Thus, the defendant's act shall be deemed to constitute only a single crime of conflict with the victim as a whole.
(See Supreme Court Decision 84Do2083 delivered on June 25, 1985). According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant is jointly with J.