beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment for Defendant A, confiscation, and six months of imprisonment for Defendant C) is too unreasonable.
B. It is improper that the court below’s sentence (the defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, six months in case of the defendant C, defendant H: 10 months in case of imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, two years in case of probation suspension, one community service work hours, and one hundred and twenty hours in case of confiscation) is too unfasible.
2. It is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor on the argument related to the part of confiscation by the prosecutor alone constituted “property acquired through an act similar to that of an instrument, device, etc. owned or possessed by him/her for similar act” under Article 51(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act, and it is difficult to view that the “goods which were offered or intended to be offered for an act of crime” under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act falls under “goods which have been offered or intended to be offered for an act of crime,” and there is no other evidence to deem otherwise.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not order the confiscation of each of the above confiscated articles is legitimate, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
3. A favorable circumstance is that Defendant A and C recognize and reflects the instant crime, the said Defendants did not have the same criminal record, and there was no criminal record exceeding the fine, and there was no criminal record after 2010, etc. regarding the Defendant A, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A and C.
On the other hand, since the private sports entertainment site is highly harmful to the society, the act of participating in it is necessary to impose severe punishment, the size of the sports entertainment site of this case seems to be considerable, and the defendant A needed to operate the above gambling site.