(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.06.18 2015노1473 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.06.18 2015노1473

도박공간개설등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each punishment (the defendant A: imprisonment of 10 months and additional collection of 75,877,250 won; imprisonment of 1 year and additional collection of 65,165,250 won; imprisonment of 1 year and additional collection of 66,265,250 won; imprisonment of 1 year and additional collection of 66,265,250 won) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The defendants recognized all of the crimes of this case and against their mistakes, and the fact that the operation of the site of the sports soil had already been suspended before the investigation of the crime of this case was commenced is favorable to the defendants.

On the other hand, such as the instant case, illegal activities of publishing sports competitions are disadvantageous to the Defendants, such as: (a) the fact that there is a very great social harm, such as promoting the gambling spirit of citizens by allowing many and unspecified persons to play a speculative game; and (b) the nature of the crime is not good; (c) the period of operation of the illegal sports soil site by the Defendants is short; and (d) it appears that the profits therefrom are not significant; and (e) the fact that the following account was used to disguise and conceal the proceeds of the crime.

Considering the above circumstances and various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is difficult to deem that each sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals by the Defendants are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the judgment below, "the same year" in Paragraph 17 of the crime of the court below

1. From January 2, 2013, “from around February 2, 2013” is apparent that it is a clerical error in writing, and thus, ex officio correction is in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on

참조조문

-형사소송규칙 제25조

-형사소송법 제364조 제4항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.09.10 2015노2481

-대구지방법원 2015.04.23 2015노18

-창원지방법원 2020.05.08 2020노363

-창원지방법원 2016.09.07 2016노1499

-부산지방법원 2016.12.22 2016노4127