beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of facts and the legal principles, the court below acquitted the Defendant on this part on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the said Defendant served as above, although it could sufficiently be recognized that Defendant A, as stated in the facts charged as to the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (such as opening, etc. of gambling), “it performed the role of managing the domestic total boards that recruited the K site users, paying operating expenses to the K site, and keeping and settling profits accrued from the operation of the site.”
B. The prosecutor asserts that the seized cash is subject to confiscation on the ground of the assertion that the sentencing of the defendant A is unfair. However, the court below held that in the case of Nos. 18 (cash 2050,000) and No. 19 (cash 65 million) of the seized evidence, there is no proof as to the requirements for confiscation, and the prosecutor asserts that the above confiscated cash is subject to confiscation. Accordingly, this part of the argument is separate from the determination of the illegality of sentencing.
Although the lower court did not confiscate evidence Nos. 18 (cash 2050,000) and No. 19 (cash 65 million) that were seized from the Defendant A, the lower court held that the said Defendant had any profits other than the proceeds of gambling.
It can not be seen, and the above money should be subject to confiscation, considering that the business expenses, etc. are actually paid to the general sales.
(c)
The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, confiscation, community service, 120 hours, and 1 million won of fine) against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too uneasible.
2. Determination
A. We examine the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. The court below is legitimate.