beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants A, and confiscation. Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for October: Defendant D: fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The crime of this case committed by Defendant A is committed against the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) not classified or modified game machine is provided to customers; (b) it is not good that the act of exchange is committed; (c) Defendant installed the entrance correction device and CCTV to avoid control; and (d) operated the game site of this case systematically and systematically, such as sending text messages to customers; (d) the speculative game site is seriously harmful to society, such as the occurrence of home wave by leaving the general public brue in the game; and (e) the size of each game site of this case and the size of the cash confiscated confiscated; and (e) it appears that profits would not be considerable in light of the size of each game site of this case and the size of the seized cash, etc., even though the Defendant had already been punished twice due to the violation of the Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. Act
However, in full view of all the circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing of this case as shown in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant seems to be too unreasonable, as it appears that the Defendant’s family and surrounding persons appeal against the Defendant’s wife, and that the Defendant’s family and surrounding persons are not good in the Defendant’s health condition, and that it appears that the Defendant would have been engaged in his occupation after the Defendant’s discontinuance of operation of the speculative game room.
B. Defendant B was involved in the game room business by managing A’s help and the overall operation of the game room business, and participating in the lease of a game machine, and the Defendant already violated the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc.