logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.02.09 2017노5280
국민체육진흥법위반(도박개장등)등
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants A and B and by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the above Defendants A and B (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, additional collection of one year, 385,464,501, Defendant B: Imprisonment of six months, additional collection of 4,500,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (as above, 6 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended sentence, 9,500,000 won, 4 months of suspended sentence, 1 year of suspended sentence, 6 years of additional collection, 6,50,00 won, and 6,50,000 won) are deemed to be too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A, B, and prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing as to each of the above Defendants A, B, and prosecutor’s unfair sentencing, together with the following facts: Defendant A took charge of leading roles, such as providing funds necessary for the establishment and operation of the Internet gambling site in the case of Defendant A; Defendant A used the above gambling site by taking over another’s electronic financial transaction access media; Defendant B was the most criminal proceeds; Defendant B committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group deadly weapons, etc.) in the case of Defendant B; Defendant B committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime; three times of punishment for other crimes (including the above repeated crime committed) more than 10 times; Defendant B appeared at the investigative agency to voluntarily cooperate with the investigation; Defendant A’s participation in the instant criminal investigation; Defendant B’s criminal records against his or her wrong facts; Defendant B’s participation in the Defendant’s operation of the said gambling site; and Defendant B’s participation in the aforementioned circumstances, such as the degree of equity in the aforementioned circumstances that he or she did not have acquired.

arrow