logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.11.14 2013노1726
사행행위등규제및처벌특례법위반등
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized No. 1.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The three-year imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the court below to Defendant A is too unfortunate and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the imprisonment of three years for Defendant A, the fine of three million won for Defendant E, and the fine of five million won for Defendant F) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following factors: (a) Defendant A’s judgment; (b) Defendant A’s crime using a speculative game room business requires strict punishment due to serious harm to society, such as promoting an excessive speculative spirit to the general public and undermining sound sense of work; (c) Defendant A’s game room in which Defendant A was involved; and (d) Defendant A continued to engage in the business even though it was regulated by an investigative agency at a certain place of business, the size of the game room is reasonable; (b) Defendant A’s mistake is against the Defendant and there was no past and previous punishment; and (c) Defendant A’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence; and (d) other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant A, is

3. We examine the judgment on Defendant E and F, the Defendants’ violation of their mistake, and the Defendants’ participation in the instant crime is not significant, and Defendant E has no record of criminal punishment. Defendant E has the record of criminal punishment. Defendant E committed the instant crime even though he had the record of suspended indictment due to the same kind of crime, Defendant E committed the instant crime, and the said Defendants aided and abetted the instant game site operated by the method of installing the steel entrance and the CCTV access control, even though they could sufficiently be aware that the instant game site operated by the said method is an illegal game site. In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the crime of the said Defendants is inappropriate.

arrow