사행행위등규제및처벌특례법위반등
The judgment below
The parts against the Defendants are reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and by imprisonment for Defendant B.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and two months of imprisonment, and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant A’s businesses of each of the instant speculative games need to be strictly punished in that their social harm is high in that they interfere with sound labor and encourage speculative spirit. The Defendant is recognized as having heavy character of crime, such as making it difficult to arrest the actual owner of the game by committing so-called “bab president,” in relation to the business of the instant speculative games. Meanwhile, the Defendant confessions each of the instant offenses and reflects his mistake in depth. In full consideration of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., there is no record of criminal punishment for the same crime in the past, and there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime in the past, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable.
B. Defendant B is recognized as not having much degree of involvement in the division of duties in relation to the business of a considerable scale of speculative game room, and the quality of the crime such as carrying on a nominal owner of business, etc., but considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant confessions and reflects the instant crime; (b) the period of running the game room business in fact is relatively short; (c) there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime; and (d) other various sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, balance of punishment with accomplices, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat somewhat inappropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable.
3. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and the defendants' appeal of this case is based on its reasoning, and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
b) the summary of the evidence and evidence.