beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (Defendant D, Defendant H: a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant E: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the facts that Defendant D, H Domine, the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes and against the Defendants, and that there was no record of punishment for each of the same kind of crime, etc., but the crime related to illegal game grounds is highly harmful to society by encouraging citizens to commit an excessive speculative spirit and hindering sound labor, etc., the Defendants directly shared money exchange projects essential for the instant crime, and are deemed to have participated in the instant crime from the beginning of the instant game site.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and various factors of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.
B. In full view of the favorable circumstances such as Defendant E’s suicide, the Defendant recognized all the instant crimes, the fact that there is no record of punishment for the same crime, and the number of days actually working in the instant game room is considered to be five days, etc., but the crime related to the illegal game room is highly likely to cause social harm, such as encouraging excessive speculative spirit of the people, undermining sound labor awareness, and taking into account the fact that he participated in money exchange business essential for the instant crime, such crime is not good.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and various factors of sentencing indicated in the record, such as circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and thus, the Criminal Procedure Act.