(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.05.30 2013노282 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.05.30 2013노282

사행행위등규제및처벌특례법위반

Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant A shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the circumstances after the crime of Defendant A by the public prosecutor, and the same criminal records of Defendant B and Defendant C, the punishment of each of the fines of KRW 3 million against Defendant A, Defendant B and C, which was pronounced by the court below, is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1) With respect to the part on Defendant A among the facts constituting an offense of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, even though Defendant A is not the unemployment price of the game of this case but the person who lends his name only, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts by recognizing the above Defendant as the business owner leading the operation of the game of this case. 2) The above mistake of mistake of mistake of unfair sentencing has influenced the sentencing. Thus, the punishment of 8 months sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant A, i.e., ① according to witness B and C's testimony in this court, the Defendant entered the game site of this case several times and took charge of overall affairs. C appears to have immediately known the fact upon the police's control over the game site, ② Defendant A made a statement that he had been unemployed in the course of investigation, ② Defendant A also made a statement that he was aware that he was unemployed, and the above Defendant stated that he was subject to deliberation of the game machine as to He who was called a unemployment by destroying the statement in the trial (Evidence No. 41-44 of the evidence record) and stated to the effect that he was merely a person who recommended to purchase it (Evidence No. 41-44 of the evidence record), ③ Defendant A made a relatively detailed statement in detail that he would operate the game site, how he was employed by I and employees, and how to purchase the game machine (Evidence No. 310-310 of the evidence record).

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2013.02.06 2012고단3048

-대구지방법원 2013.05.02 2013노645

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.19 2015고단2166

-부산지방법원 2014.10.21 2014노2840

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2014.05.15 2013고단967