beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, B, C, D, and E and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The crime of violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Regulation and Punishment of Fraudulent Acts, etc. of this case by Defendant A (Appeal of Unfair Competition) is deemed to operate multiple types of gambling games on a systematic basis by the Defendant, including setting up a nominal owner of the business (tentatively named “sypons”) and setting up a separate money exchange. The scale of each game room (40 each game machine) and the continuous operation of the business by opening a new game room even if the police control was discovered, etc. is not good.
In addition, all of the above crimes and the injury to BT committed during the period of probation due to violent crimes (the period of probation was limited to the escape from punishment due to each of the crimes in this case), and the fact that the defendant has been punished several times due to violent crimes, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.
However, the circumstances are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has been divided in depth into each of the crimes of this case, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim BT, and that there was no record of punishment for the crime related to speculative acts.
Therefore, in light of the above circumstances and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., it is not determined that the lower court’s imprisonment (additional collection of KRW 24.5 million) is too heavy or unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (Defendant B’s appeal of unreasonable sentencing) is a favorable condition for the Defendant, with the depth of each of the instant offenses, and the fact that there was no record of punishment as a crime related to speculative acts.
On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is to operate multiple games organized by the defendant, such as setting a nominal business owner and setting a separate money exchange shop (40 each game machine), with a large scale of each game room (40 each game machine), and even if it is discovered to regulate police.