beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant A (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months, and the second crime as decided: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months) is too unreasonable.
B. Since it is reasonable to view that the false statement that Defendant B was the actual owner of the game of this case by the police as the prosecutor (not guilty part) and the police constitutes the crime of escape because it was difficult or impossible for the investigative agency to discover or arrest the actual owner of the game of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant B's escape of the criminal and the crime of aiding and abetting the criminal escape of the defendant A.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 1 as stated in the judgment of the court below, for five months, and for the crimes No. 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below, two months, and the defendant B: the fine of three million won) is too una
2. Determination
A. (i) The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine. In full view of the circumstances such as the original adjudication, including the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, etc., Defendant B’s false statement on October 15, 2012 at the time of the original adjudication, is merely a false statement as the actual business owner who purchased and operated a game machine via the Internet despite his/her being an employee in the game room, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the investigation agency’s discovery of actual business owner or arrest was difficult or impossible as a result of the submission of a false statement or false materials. Even if it appears otherwise, Defendant B’s false statement on October 15, 2012 may not be deemed to have been passed since it was merely a false statement as the actual business owner who purchased and operated the game machine through the Internet.