logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.12.20 2016노3714
국민체육진흥법위반(도박개장등)등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is too uncompared and unfair with respect to the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, and additional collection) by the lower court, while the prosecutor appealed each appeal by asserting that it is too uncompared and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant: (a) allowed an unspecified number of people to easily gambling through the Internet site; (b) the so-called illegal sports soil site operated by the Defendant was organized and planned by sharing the role of managing the co-offenders in a foreign server and by dispatching them to a foreign country.

In addition, the Defendant, as a general president of the illegal sports soil site, played a leading and key role in committing a crime, such as managing employees in Vietnam, taking charge of shocking and site management, etc. The total amount of the Does is very large as KRW 376.2 billion, and the Defendant’s profits are not good enough to commit a crime.

In addition, the defendant asserts that Z and AD were sentenced to imprisonment in the first instance court for a period of one year and six months, and that the defendant's punishment was reduced to a 10-year suspended sentence, or that the remaining accomplices were sentenced to suspended sentence for the reason that they were sentenced to suspended sentence. However, the above Z and AD were very short for two months during which they participated in the crime, and they were in charge of publicity of the already established sports earth site. The defendant was given benefits through the crime and the amount of the benefits are very low, and the remaining accomplices, which the defendant's defendant's act as the basis of unfair sentencing, are merely employees of sports earth site, and there is a very big difference in illegality when compared with the defendant.

On the other hand, as stated in the lower judgment, the Defendant returned to the Republic of Cambodia for five months due to the instant crime and voluntarily surrendered while returning to the Republic of Korea.

arrow