beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant B (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C1) In fact, there was no fact that Defendant B had a wood card opened on the part of Defendant B for the purpose of gambling at the gambling place in which Defendant B participated, and there was no fact that Defendant B did gambling at the time and place set forth in [Attachment] No. 1] of the sight table of crimes in the judgment below.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In addition to the various circumstances revealed by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts by Defendant C, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the victim N served as a so-called buttts at the time of gambling as stated in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment in the lower court.
The testimony was made; ② The date and place on which Defendant C entered in the list of crimes in the court below’s trial, i.e., the date and place on April 9, 2015.
(3) On April 9, 2015 and April 13, 2015, 2015, the victim S gave testimony to the Defendant C, and both Defendant C had been in gambling with Defendant B twice, and Defendant C had been in fluence by changing the card while serving as buttts.
(4) On the other hand, at the court of the court below on April 9, 2015, the AF made a statement in favor of the defendant B to recover money upon the request of the defendant B.
Although testimony was made, it did not make any statement about whether there was Defendant C at the time, and the AF played the role of withdrawing money under the direction of Defendant B at the time.
Even if the defendant C remains in the gambling place, it is sufficiently recognized that the probability that the defendant C had the remaining mind of the defendant B and victims exists. Thus, the above statement of the AF alone is sufficient.