beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for eight months, respectively.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (one hundred months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio, Defendant A’s judgment on the grounds for appeal was examined ex officio, and the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment to the effect that Defendant A opened a gambling place around April 2013 as follows: (a) the part of the facts charged in the instant case that Defendant A opened the gambling place around April 2013; and (b) the subject matter of the judgment below was changed by this court’s permission. Thus, the judgment below was no longer maintained.
3. The crime of opening gambling places for determining unfair sentencing by Defendant B is an unfavorable circumstance that the crime of opening gambling places is promoting gambling activities that undermine sound labor ideas and social morals and customs, and thus, requires strict punishment. The above Defendant, in 2011, was punished for a suspended sentence and has the record of having been punished for the same kind of crime. The crime of this case is classified into “fildler”, “warehouse”, and “responding room” and established gambling places in a planned and systematic manner.
However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the above defendant's mistake appears to have been recognized and reflected, the period of the crime does not relatively long, and the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case seems to fall short of the degree of his participation, and considering all of the sentencing conditions of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is somewhat unreasonable, since it is recognized that the sentence imposed by the above defendant is inappropriate. Thus, the above defendant's argument is reasonable.
4. The conclusion is that there is a ground for ex officio reversal of the amendment of indictment against Defendant A as above, and the appeal by Defendant B is reasonable, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.