beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant B and the part against Defendant D shall be reversed respectively.
Defendant
B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B1) misunderstanding of facts (the issuance of similar sports betting tickets) that the Defendant operated the illegal sports soil site as stated in the judgment of the court below. However, the amount of the money deposited and exchanged as stated in the attached list (1) prior to the alteration of the attached list was repeatedly calculated in light of the details of the deposited money and deposited between 21 accounts as stated in the judgment of the court below, and even though the Defendant actually exchanged the money deposited from members and the money exchanged to members by using the above accounts, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that recognized the deposited amount and exchange amount as stated in the attached list (1) prior to the alteration of the attached list and convicted all the charges of this part of the charges, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.
B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to issue similar sports betting tickets to Defendant D, Defendant D’s act similar to the issuance of sports betting tickets can be acknowledged in collusion with Defendant B, etc., by providing a customer name file accumulated in the operation of a similar illegal sports earth site to Defendant B prior to the establishment of the illegal sports earth site of this case, and subsidizing part of the operating funds of the site. However, the lower court determined that this part of the facts charged was not proven, and determined that this part of the facts charged was not proven, and there was an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that the lower court affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove that there was an injury to Defendant B to carry dangerous articles, the court below determined that there was no proof of a crime of injury to carry dangerous articles, and determined that there was no simple crime of injury.