beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant B for two years and two months, and Defendant B for two years and two months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts is merely an aiding and abetting offender A. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspension of execution, community service, 200 hours, 37,684, 560 won) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) The calculation of the surcharge by the lower court is based on an erroneous factual relationship. (2) It is against the principle of proportionality to confiscate each real estate listed in the separate sheet of misunderstanding legal principles.
3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection KRW 37,684,560) is too unreasonable. C. Defendant C1’s calculation of the additional imposition of mistake of facts is based on an erroneous factual relationship.
2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment with labor, additional collection of KRW 15,833,316) is too unreasonable and unfair. D. The prosecutor (the lower court’s sentence against Defendants B and C is too unreasonable and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Determination on Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts) The following circumstances recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, C, which operated a commercial sex business establishment, has been in charge of Defendant A’s business when going out of the place of business. Defendant A stated that “A was in charge of giving money from customers, giving guidance to customers, cleaning a business establishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 107 pages).” Defendant A received benefits of 18,233,400 won from January 3, 2014 to November 5, 2015 (see, e.g., Investigation Record No. 216 of the Investigation Record). Defendant A had been in charge of a long-term lease agreement of Defendant A as unemployed when the police was controlled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do2755, Nov. 27, 2013).