도박
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
Defendant B’s resident registration number “K” as “L”;
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, N, F, and G, together with the Defendants, did not raise any objection against the acquittal portion as indicated in the lower judgment, and thus a summary order became final and conclusive. Although there is no evidence to prove that the cards submitted by the Defendants to an investigation agency were actually used for gambling, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the fact that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the cards submitted by the Defendants to an investigation agency were actually used for gambling, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants (a fine of one million won per each) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On April 29, 2015, from around 15:00 to 23:00 of the same day, the Defendants, along with the summary of the facts charged, 1/2 of the maximum amount of the printing money up to three times each time he/she receives a letter of card 1 by using 52 card from 501 to 52 card units in Kim Jong-si D, and 1/2 of the maximum amount of the printing money. The Defendants ambling “ball” in the same manner between May 1, 2015 and 15:00 to 23:00 of the same day.
B. The lower court’s judgment, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, i.e., (i) the Defendants made a statement to the effect that they suffered from gambling damage by F and G with respect to this part of the facts charged; (ii) the Defendants were appraised by using a fabricated card with 38 boxes out of total 42 cards presumed to have been used at the time; and (iii) the Defendants did not assert fraud in order to avoid the liability for the crime of gambling after the control of the gambling site; and (iv) the Defendants filed a voluntary report in the course of submitting a card with suspicion of gambling. In so doing, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, which was presented by the Defendants, led to gambling as shown in this part of the facts charged.
It is difficult to recognize
in this respect.