beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal asserts that the Defendants asserted that the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and unfair, while the prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant C and E is too uneased and unfair.
2. The Defendants recognized the instant crime and did not have any record of committing the same kind of crime.
However, the crime of this case is committed by the Defendants’ establishment of the so-called news room, and the Defendants are engaged in the business of free-registered vocational establishments by arranging singing and receiving an know-how, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime. In the case of Defendant A, the period of the business is about 1 year and 10 months, and about 11 months in the case of Defendant I, and the profits earned by the Defendants are also reasonable.
Defendant
In the case of A, there is a past record of the crime of dual punishment, and in the case of Defendant I, there is a record of crimes such as violation of the Customs Business Regulation Act and violation of the Food Sanitation Act.
In addition, there is no change in the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.
In full view of all the circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the sentence imposed by the joint Defendants who did not file an appeal, as indicated in the records and pleadings of this case, the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is too unreasonable.
3. The crime of this case involving the prosecutor’s and Defendants C and E’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is that the Defendants engaged in the business of free-registered fee-charging work opening by opening a so-called news room and arranging singing machines, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the Defendants, and the profits earned from the above crime is reasonable, and the Defendants were punished twice for the same crime.