If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who operates a crupt bank under the trade name of “D” from 105 of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C building 105.

From February 14, 2009 to May 5, 2009, the Defendant established an Internet gambling program with “E” and “F” at the above cambling room from around February 14, 2009 to around May 5, 2009, issued the Internet gambling program with “E” and “F,” and issued the cards charged with cyber money in the same amount to customers, and let customers do gambling on the above E and F by accessing the said E and F, using cyber money, and received from the said website operator an amount equivalent to 9% of the total amount of money for gambling as commission.

As a result, the Defendant opened gambling for profit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Copy of a report on controlling the amusement business;

1. Seizure record and list;

1. Investigation report (on-site investigation);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 247 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of an attorney under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the crime of gambling opening under Article 247 of the Criminal Act, which is established by opening a gambling place under the control of the person who is the resident for profit. The crime of gambling is separate from the crime of gambling. The crime of gambling is separate from the crime of gambling. The "gambling" refers to the case where the participating party gets property and dispute over the acquisition and loss of property by the winning party. The "for profit-making purpose" refers to the intention of seeking to gain an illegal pecuniary profit in return for the opening of gambling place. It does not necessarily require that the purpose of profit-making is recognized, not the direct consideration of the opening of gambling place, but the case for the benefit which is indirectly obtained through the opening of gambling place, and that the profit-making purpose is not required in reality (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do5802, Apr. 12, 2002).