beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of conviction against Defendant A and B, Defendant D and E shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A. A.
Reasons
1. As to Defendant A and B, on November 2014, the lower court found Defendant A and B guilty of each of the remaining crimes in relation to the substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, while acquitted each of the charges as to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by taking over the access media related to the bank account (2 times 36 of the daily list of crimes in the lower judgment) and taking over the access media related to the bank account around May 2015, around May 2015. The lower court appealed against the lower judgment on the ground that only the aforementioned Defendants, Defendant D, and E appealed appealed on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair, and the aforementioned acquittal portion against Defendant A and B was determined by the lapse of the appeal period.
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part against Defendant A and B and to Defendant D and E.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered against the Defendants is unfair as it is too unreasonable that each of the punishments imposed by the court below (for defendant A and B, six months of imprisonment, one year of imprisonment, one year of imprisonment, and one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. As in the instant case, the crime of opening and operating an illegal sports gambling site is serious, such as promoting a speculative spirit and hindering sound labor. In particular, the illegal gambling site of this case had an office in China as well as in China, and operated systematically and systematically for a long time by sharing the roles of each party, and the amount of money for gambling managed by the Defendants is also enormous (in the event of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by taking over an access medium, the crime is not likely in that the relevant account resulted in additional crimes by using the fund for large-scale internet gambling crime, and the harm and injury was already widely known to the general public through the mass media, etc. in light of the fact that the crime was committed.