logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.27 2019노3298
한국마사회법위반(도박개장등)등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The additional collection under Article 56 of the Korean Racing Association Act is not a punitive collection, but a collection under Article 56 of the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles constitutes a collection under the nature of deprivation of profits, and where several persons jointly obtain profits from committing a crime, only the distributed amount, i.e., the profit actually accrued to the Defendants, should be individually confiscated and additionally collected. The lower court rendered an additional collection under Article 56 of the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles only for Defendant A without the sentence of additional collection by examining the amount of profit actually accrued to the Defendants of the instant case, and the amount of profit actually accrued to the Defendants of the instant case is too reasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In addition to the collection of criminal proceeds in determining the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against Defendant A’s assertion, even if the cost spent by the offender to obtain criminal proceeds has been spent from criminal proceeds, it is not merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds, and thus, it shall not be deducted from criminal proceeds to be collected.

In a case where several persons jointly obtain a profit from engaging in a speculative business, only the allocated amount, i.e., the profit actually accrued, shall be confiscated or collected separately, and when it is impossible to determine the allocated amount, the amount shall be equally divided shall be confiscated or collected.

(1) According to the records duly adopted and examined by the lower court, Defendant A has invested all the expenses to be invested for the operation of the private holiday site as “president,” in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

arrow