국민체육진흥법위반(도박개장등)등
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
subparagraph 1 of this Article shall be confiscated.
1. The sentence (a) sentenced by the first instance court (a summary of the reasons for appeal) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the modification of indictment and the modification of indictment
A. (Supplementary) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant violated the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds through the statement of reasons for appeal submitted (Supplementary) after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, is clear that the account listed in the daily table of the instant crime was a property used for the crime by being publicly announced through the instant gambling site, etc., and thus, it is difficult to regard the withdrawal of cash from the said account as “the act of concealing criminal proceeds, etc. for the purpose of pretending to be legitimately acquired property.” The Defendant’s withdrawal of money was intended to deliver proceeds to E, who is an accomplice, and it is merely a form of the act of opening the sports promotion (replacement, etc. of gambling) and gambling space, and it cannot be deemed as a violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds.
B. The prosecutor of the indictment to revise the indictment shall delete 4(T) and 7(U) from a year among the list of crimes in which the indictment is pending during the trial, and accordingly, “total 7 borrowed accounts, total 1,270,898,000 won” in the last sentence of the crime list as “total 5 borrowed accounts, total 1,154,810,000 won.”
2. Of the violations of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, 10-11, “1,270,898,000 won in total through seven borrowed accounts” was filed for amendment of Bill of Indictment to the effect that “one thousand and one hundred won in total through five borrowed accounts” was corrected to KRW 1,154,810,000, and this Act was permitted.
Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the subject of the judgment was changed regarding the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds. Furthermore, the first instance court violated the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds and the former part of Article 37.