beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, and by imprisonment for four months.
Reasons
1. The defendant A’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s written opinion on May 14, 2013 and the second trial of the court of the first instance alleged that “the defendant A constitutes an aiding and abetting crime, not a joint principal offender.” However, the ground of appeal misunderstanding the above purport is made after the lapse of the deadline for submission, and unless such details are stated in the statement of grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal, and thus, it shall not be further determined
The sentence of the court below against the defendants (the imprisonment of eight months for the defendant A, the imprisonment of two years for the suspension of the execution of six months for the defendant C, and the community service work of 240 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. As to the instant crime, the type of illegal gambling game room business in which premiums obtained through the use of game products are exchanged in cash, such as the instant crime, requires a strict warning to the Defendants with a very great social harm, such as encouraging the general public’s spirit of gambling, and failure in home economy.
However, in the case of Defendant A, the place of business was provided only for the purpose of getting a car, but it was revealed that he was not directly involved in the game room business, and there was no specific criminal power except for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in around 1995. In the case of Defendant C, even though there was a previous previous crime punished twice by taking part in the business of the illegal speculative game room in around 2010, it was determined that Defendant C was only an employee who was engaged in social service on a daily basis, and even in this case, it seems that it would not be easy to cope with social service due to economic difficulties, denial, disease, etc. after divorce. In addition, considering the motive and background of the crime of this case, the degree of the Defendants’ participation in the crime, age, character and conduct, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below to the Defendants seems to be somewhat unreasonable.
3...