logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.08.29 2013노2576
사행행위등규제및처벌특례법위반등
Text

The part concerning Defendant A and C among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

[Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal by the Defendant]

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance court’s decision (1) asserts that the Defendants’ sentencing sentence (1 year of imprisonment, confiscation, and Defendant C: 10 months of imprisonment, and Defendant D: 8 months of imprisonment) of the first instance judgment is too unreasonable.

(2) Defendant D asserts that, although he did not introduce B to C and A, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Defendant A and C of the second instance judgment asserted that the sentence of the second instance judgment (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and imprisonment for 8 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A and C’s assertion ex officio, the judgment of the court below that the above Defendants appealed together with the above Defendants. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the above Defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and all of the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be sentenced concurrently. In this regard, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance

B. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (this part of the Defendant’s assertion is based on the assertion of facts that are the premise of sentencing, or it is based on the assertion of mistake of facts in accordance with the purport of the assertion), Defendant A made a statement that “A introduces B to the person himself/herself” at the investigation stage, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, Defendant C introduced D to “a person who is in front of and rear B” during the prosecutor’s investigation process, and “A has employed B” (this evidence record 579 pages), and Co-defendant B also stated that “D has been employed.”

arrow