beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A penalty against B shall be 500,000 won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) was engaged in a game as part of a game for erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as part of a game for Defendant D, and Defendant A was only engaged in a game for a period of time per hour, and the degree of temporary recreation was not exceeded the extent of temporary recreation.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby pronounced Defendant A guilty.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) was engaged in a game as part of a game for mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as part of a game for Defendant D, and Defendant B was merely engaged in a game for about 30 to 40 minutes and did not exceed the extent of temporary recreation.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby pronounced Defendant A guilty.
(2) The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court on Defendant B is too unreasonable.
C. Although Defendant C (De facto Mistake) did not lend money for gambling to Defendant C, etc., the lower court convicted Defendant C by misunderstanding the fact and sentenced Defendant C guilty.
Defendant
D. (1) Although there was no fact that Defendant D received money from Defendant A, etc. as the cost of providing gambling places, the lower court convicted Defendant D of the charge of gambling opening among the facts charged against Defendant D by misunderstanding the fact.
(2) The lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 700,000) imposed on Defendant D is too unreasonable.
E. Although Defendant E (ME) did not have any gambling (SE), the lower court convicted Defendant E of the fact by misunderstanding the fact.
F. The prosecutor's (misunderstanding of facts against Defendant D)'s statement of the court below that Defendant D did not make hullar is difficult to acknowledge credibility in light of the relationship between H and the Defendant. The I's prosecutor's statement that Defendant D made hullar.