beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A and Defendant B shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the part of confiscation against Defendant A, which did not sentence the confiscation of evidence Nos. 3 through 13, and 19 through 25 (hereinafter “instant seized articles”) among seized articles.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to Defendant B’s non-guilty portion of the charges against Defendant B, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty.
2. An ex officio judgment prosecutor filed an application for amendment to a bill of amendment of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry with respect to the promotion of speculation by providing free gifts, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case, and this court permitted the application and changed the subject matter of the judgment. In the case of Defendant A, the lower court deemed that each of the crimes in its judgment is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment. As such, the part against Defendant A and the conviction part against Defendant B cannot be maintained any longer.
3. Determination of the lower judgment on the prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine on Defendant B’s acquittal portion
A. The lower court found Defendant B not guilty of violating the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry due to money exchange on the grounds that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court.
1) Defendant B, as a senior friendship of Defendant A, worked at the game room in the name of “G” in Ulsandong-gu F and “G” at the time of committing a money exchange crime, and prepared for the meals of Defendant A and his children, and provided customers with the opportunity to see, and at the same time, Defendant B entered and kept a remote game score in the Kabter.
2) August 4, 2016