beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part of additional collection against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A 8,818,00 won shall be collected from A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1’s portion of the lower judgment in its determination of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles is that the sum of KRW 10,042,00 [the sum of KRW 8,60,000 (the sum of KRW 1 through 10, 24, 25, and 26 (the sum of KRW 860,00,00 that was confiscated from Defendant B)] of the cash and checks confiscated, which is profits from the instant crime, should not be deducted when calculating the amount of additional collection. Defendant B and the first instance trial co-defendants (= KRW 19,80,000 per day x 99 days x 2) also did not deduct the amount of additional collection against Defendant A, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A [10 months of imprisonment, confiscation (Evidence No. 1 to 23), additional collection 90 million won] is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B, who was employed by Defendant A and instructed by Defendant B, engaged in money exchange business as an employee, and does not constitute money exchange business independently.
Therefore, Articles 44(1)2 and 32(1)7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act cannot be applied to the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding of facts.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B [six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, confiscation (Evidence No. 25, 26)] is too unreasonable.
(c)
The sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant A is too uneasible and unfair.
2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that Defendant B committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A and the first instance court co-defendant C and took charge of money exchange business, etc. can be acknowledged.