Defendant 1 and five others

Both parties

Kim Jong-na, Kim Jong-Gyeong, Kim Jong-sung (prosecution), Kim Dong-dong, and Kukkiwon (Court Decision)

Attorneys Yoon Sung-i et al., Counsel for the defendant

1. Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Da2431 decided Feb. 19, 2013 / 2. Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Da23, 439, 473 (Consolidated) decided Apr. 25, 2013/3; 3. Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Ma971 decided Aug. 13, 2013

Of the judgment of the first and third court and the judgment of the second court, the part against Defendants 1 and 3 and the conviction against Defendants 2 (Defendant of the judgment of the Supreme Court) shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, by imprisonment for a year and six months, and by imprisonment for a year and three years, respectively.

However, with respect to defendants 1 and 3, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order Defendant 1 and 3 to provide community service for 160 hours each.

The evidence of seizure Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 shall be confiscated from Defendant 1, and the evidence No. 4 shall be confiscated from Defendant 3.

All appeals filed by Defendant 4, 5, and 6 are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants

The punishment of the court below (Defendant 1: imprisonment of March of the first instance court, one year of the suspended sentence, two years of the suspended sentence, two years of the community service work, 160 hours of the second instance court, 2 years and six months of the imprisonment of the second instance court, Defendant 3: imprisonment of the first instance court, 1 year of the suspended sentence, 2 years of the suspended sentence, 160 hours of the community service work, and 5 hours of the accused: imprisonment of the first instance court, 1 year of the suspended sentence, 2 years of the suspended sentence, 160 hours of the probation, 160 hours of the community service work) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

Each punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant 2 and 3 is unfair because it is too unhued, and it is necessary to additionally collect 25 million won criminal proceeds from Defendant 3.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant 1 and 2

Before the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing as to Defendant 2 by the above Defendants and the prosecutor, this Court tried by combining the appeals cases against each of the above Defendants with each of the judgment below, and each of the offenses at the time of original trial is in concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to one sentence within the scope of punishment imposed by concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, among the judgment of the court below of first and third, the part against Defendant 1 and the part against Defendant 2, among the judgment of the court below of second, are no longer maintained.

B. Judgment on Defendant 3

1) The act of running an illegal game room is highly harmful to the general public by encouraging excessive speculative spirit to harm sound labor, and thus there is a need for strict punishment. The fact that the degree of participation in the game room is important by actually operating the game room, etc., are disadvantageous to the defendant, but it seems that the defendant committed a serious violation against his own mistake, and that he is detained for about six months up to now, and there is no specific criminal power except for the crime of simple gambling, and there is no specific criminal power, as it is sentenced once a fine due to the crime of simple gambling, the defendant contributes the amount of money equivalent to about 21 million won with an indication of his mistake to the Green field Welfare Center and the Green field of goods, as well as the amount of money equivalent to about 21 million won as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, the motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor's assertion on unfair sentencing is somewhat unreasonable, and there is no reason to deem the defendant's assertion on unfair sentencing.

2) Although the prosecutor asserts that the criminal proceeds should be collected from the defendant from the defendant, the collection of the criminal proceeds by the defendant should be governed by the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. Article 8 of the above Act is a discretionary provision of confiscation and the amount of criminal proceeds calculated by the prosecutor is merely a trend, and it cannot be readily concluded that the above amount is the criminal proceeds amount of the defendant, and thus, this part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on Defendant 4, 5, and 6

In the case of Defendant 5 and 6, the degree of participation in the crime is not much significant by managing the business of the game room, Defendant 4 was a so-called head of the game room business, and there is a high degree of contribution to the game room business as the head of the game room business, illegal game room is highly harmful to the society by encouraging excessive speculative spirit to the general public, and undermining the awareness of sound labor. Defendant 5 had the record of punishment for the same kind of crime. In full view of the defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the crime of this case, it cannot be deemed unfair that the court below's punishment against the above defendants is too excessive and unfair. Thus, the above defendants'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part against Defendant 1 among the judgment of the court below of first, third, and second, as well as the part against Defendant 2's guilty part of the judgment of the court below, since there exist the above reasons for ex officio reversal, it shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the arguments of Defendant 1 and 2 and the prosecutor's judgment as to Defendant 2, and it shall be judged again as follows. Since Defendant 3's appeal is reasonable, the part against Defendant 3 among the judgment of the court below of second under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be reversed, and the appeal against Defendant 4, 5, and 6 shall be reversed, and it shall be decided again after the pleading, and it shall be decided as follows. Since the appeal against Defendant 4, 5, and 6 shall

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence is the same as that of each of the judgment below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of speculative machines); Article 44(1)2 and Article 32(1)7 of the Promotion of the Game Industry Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of speculative acts using speculative machines for business purposes)

B. Defendant 2: Article 30(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of speculative machines), Article 45 subparag. 4, Article 32(1)2 of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of game products different from the contents classified), Article 44(1)2, and Article 32(1)7 of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 152(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 151(1), and Article 31(1)2 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc.

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 30(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a place of speculative business using speculative machines), Articles 44(1)2 and 32(1)7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a place of business exchanging results in exchange) and imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1 and 3: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (General Considerations in favor of the Defendant)

1. Social service order;

Defendant 1 and 3: Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant 1

The fact that the defendant's participation in the business is not easy by exchanging the result of the illegal game room, and that the amount obtained by defraudation by fraud is a considerable amount of 40 million won, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that all of the crimes of this case are recognized and against the defendant, and the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim of the fraudulent crime, and that the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal power, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. and various sentencing conditions as shown in pleadings.

2. Defendant 2

The fact that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects them, and that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same criminal offense, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the act of running an illegal game room is highly harmful to society by encouraging excessive speculative spirit to the general public and hindering sound sense of work, and thus there is a need for strict punishment. The defendant led several illegal game places for a long time, and the defendant instigated Nonindicted 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) to escape of the defendant while being investigated due to the suspicion of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and the crime is not good, such as aiding Nonindicted 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) to escape of the defendant, and making a false statement in criminal cases, such as the escape of the criminal defendant against Nonindicted 1.

In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. and various sentencing conditions as shown in pleadings.

For transfer of judge (Presiding Judge)