beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
D shall be punished by a fine of 5 million won.
Defendant
D does not pay the above fine.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant C: the fine of 1.5 million won, the fine of 7 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Although Defendant C’s crime of this case is highly harmful to society by encouraging the citizens’ excessive spirit of gambling and hindering sound sense of work, it is necessary to punish Defendant C with strict punishment. However, Defendant C’s confession of the crime of this case as a primary offender, and the degree of participation in the crime of this case is not more than other accomplices, the degree of participation in the crime of this case is not more serious than that of other accomplices, Defendant C’s short-term operation of the illegal game of this case, Defendant C’s profits not acquired by the crime of this case, and other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant C’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it seems unfair for the court below to have imposed on Defendant C to be too unreasonable
B. From among the crimes of this case, the part on the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, among the crimes of this case, is highly likely to cause social harm by encouraging the citizens to have an excessive speculative spirit and hindering their sound labor, and there is a need to strictly punish Defendant D by preparing and submitting to the police officer who controlled the illegal game of this case a letter of the person in the name of another without authority in order to deceiving his status, and Defendant D has a record of being punished for a fine of two million won due to the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act in 2009, which was disadvantageous to Defendant D.
However, in full view of all the circumstances, including Defendant D’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s judgment is the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on sentencing.