logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.04.30 2013노3781
사행행위등규제및처벌특례법위반
Text

The judgment below

Of those, the guilty part against Defendant G shall be reversed.

Defendant

G shall be sentenced to ten months of imprisonment and a fine of five million won.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, and G: The lower court’s punishment on Defendant A and G is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) erroneous determination of facts was involved in the operation of the game room from November 10, 2012 to the 25th of the same month.

(2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unjust.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, except in exceptional cases where it is clearly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the

(2) The lower court acquitted Defendant G of the part of the facts charged in the instant case on November 10, 2012 through November 25, 2012, on the part that Defendant G participated in the operation of the game room (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006).

It is not clearly unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement.

At the end of rejecting the credibility of the A’s statement in court, it is difficult to believe that each prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation prepared by the prosecutor as it is, and the record of the statement in AA and the written statement in C prepared by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the above charged part, and there is any other evidence to prove otherwise.

arrow