beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the above, the part concerning Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B (Cheating in sentencing)’s punishment (amounting to KRW 3 million, confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant A1) The Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, found the Defendant guilty, although he did not assist and facilitate the operation of the game room E as a result of the crime, he erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the part not guilty) by the prosecutor (the defendant A), the fact that the defendant A conspired with E to commit a crime in violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry for the Use and Provision of Game Products and Exchange Business, which was not rated between January 15, 2015 and February 5, 2015.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of a violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the summary of the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below is as follows: (a) from January 15, 2015 to February 5, 2015, Defendant A set up 32 game instruments, which are game products not classified by the Committee on Water Management, in the F2nd floor office in Jeju-si, and provided them to many and unspecified customers; (b) as above, Defendant A, while running the business as above, provided customers with 10% fees after deducting from the fees to exchange in cash for the points obtained through the game; (c) Defendant A received daily allowances from E; and (d) was employed by the head of the business of the said game site (hereinafter “instant game site”); and (e) prevented the operation of the instant game site by managing the customers and the part-time students.
2) The following are acknowledged based on each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court.