beta
Text
Defendant
B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B (in fact-finding, unreasonable sentencing) acknowledged that the Defendant committed an act of exchange while working as an employee in the instant game site. However, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime in collusion with Co-Defendant A, who is the operator of the said game site.
In addition, the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, three years of probation, probation, and community service order 160 hours) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, probation, and community service order 200 hours) and the above sentence sentenced to Defendant B are too uneasible and unfair.
2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, according to the statement of the investigative agency and the defendant at the court below, and the statement of the investigative agency A at the investigative agency, the defendant actually managed and operated the game room on behalf of Co-Defendant A, the proprietor of the game room as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant consulted with A in advance or reported after the fact, and the defendant made a statement recognizing the facts charged on the first day of the court below. In full view of this, the defendant conspired with A to exchange the tangible and intangible results acquired through the use of game products, such as the facts
3. The determination of sentencing on Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on the Defendants is based on the statutory penalty, and the determination of discretion, within a reasonable and reasonable scope, by taking into account the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act,
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court, which is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our criminal procedure law, and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court.