(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.08.10 2017노265 | 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) 청주지방법원 2017.08.10 2017노265

국민체육진흥법위반(도박개장등)등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the Defendants, on May 11, 2016, attempted to commit the misconduct of the victim S in the second floor of the office of the Defendant’s operation in the Philippines, and Defendant A had S enter the room on the first floor of the office on the day.

However, the Defendants did not assault the victim at the time, and did so to let the victim enter the room to protect the victim from an employee who was frighten by the victim’s act, and did not detain the victim.

The victim was detained under the lead of K et al. from the next day, who is an employee, and the defendant A merely accepted the activities of his employees in relation to his employees, and the defendant B left the Philippines on May 12, 2016 and was not at the site of the case during the period of confinement. Thus, the defendants cannot be deemed as a joint principal offender for the crime of confinement committed by employees.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B’s imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (A) 1) - 1 - the first instance court’s determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is not significantly unfair, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is remarkably unfair, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment as to the above solely on the ground that the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). 2) When one of the publicly recruited joint principal offenders of the public offering deserts from the public offering relationship before the other public offerer reaches the execution act, the subsequent public offerer’s act

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 11. 24. 선고 2006도4994 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.11 2015노4755

-부산지방법원 2017.05.26 2016노4909

-서울북부지방법원 2018.06.07 2018노225

-제주지방법원 2017.12.07 2017노144

-서울동부지방법원 2018.12.06 2018노1187