beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The defendant above.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles did not have a habit of gambling, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mistake of facts or habitual nature, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, or habitual gambling aiding and abetting is not the nature of an act, but the habitual nature of an act is not the nature of the actor, and repeated gambling repeatedly means a habit of aiding and abetting another person's gambling. If a person with a habitive wall of gambling aids and abetting and abetting another person's gambling, he/she constitutes a crime of aiding and abetting and abetting habitually gambling, and if a person with a habitive wall of gambling plays for gambling and aiding and abetting another person's gambling, the crime of aiding and abetting habitually gambling shall be deemed to be one crime by covering a grave and habitual gambling crime (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do195, Apr. 24, 1984). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor, the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting habitually aiding and abetting shall be deemed to be one crime (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do195, Apr. 24, 1984).
Unlike the lack of recognition, there is no evidence to recognize habituality.
① The Defendant did not have any history of punishment for gambling, ② the Defendant lent gambling funds to the co-defendant A in the lower judgment from September 26, 2013 to October 25, 2013, and the Defendant appears to have not been deprived of the Defendant himself (F’s statement and part of A’s statement). ③ Some of the Defendant’s statements to the effect that he ambling by himself had the intention to exempt him from the obligation of reimbursement due to the reason that he is money for gambling in civil disputes.