(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.12 2016노735 | 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 2016.05.12 2016노735

게임산업진흥에관한법률위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, appears to have imposed one year imprisonment with prison labor, which is within the sentencing range of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee (FF) in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant operated the game of this case for a long period of four months; (b) the Defendant provided money and valuables to a crackdown police officer to obtain control information; (c) the Defendant referred to the payment of attorney-at-law fees, etc. when the game of this case was controlled, and ordered F to refrain from making statements to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant had a record of being sentenced to a fine of five million won for the same crime; (e) the Defendant provided information to police officers who provided money and valuables; and (e) the Defendant has no record of punishment heavier than fines.

B. Unlike the facts found in the lower judgment, the period of actual operation of the game of this case by the Defendant is merely one week from October 6, 2015 to October 12, 2015, and the Defendant’s defense counsel revoked the assertion of mistake of the above facts stated in the initial statement of reasons for appeal on the grounds that such circumstance is considered in light of sentencing determination data.

I asserts to the effect that this is true.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statements in F and E investigative agencies and related cases (at least 571, 2015, 571, this court), the defendant's assertion to the effect that the defendant's business period is only one week since the defendant can sufficiently be recognized as having operated the game of this case as criminal facts of the court below. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's business period is only one week cannot be accepted.

The act of exchange in the illegal game of the defendant is detrimental to the sound labor concept of the people by promoting speculative acts.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.11.29 2018고단957

-대전고등법원 2017.04.14 2016노413

-대구지방법원 2018.05.17 2017노5148

-광주지방법원 2018.07.06 2018고단403

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.11.02 2018고단1023