사행행위등규제및처벌특례법위반등
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.
Punishment of the crime
From February 21, 2012 to February 25, 2012, the Defendant conspired to divide the “D party room” in the “D party room” operated by the Defendant in Chungcheongnam-si from around the same month to around the 25th day of the same month, and from E (the instant case, May 23, 2013) and name-free persons and profits, the Defendant set up two strings, which are speculative machines, to provide the use of the unspecified number of customers, and exchanged points obtained as a result of the game, thereby engaging in speculative activities.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;
1. The list of seized articles, each protocol of seizure and the list of seized articles;
1. Photographs photographs;
1. The defense counsel asserts that the defense counsel's argument about the request for cooperation in investigation, the cancellation of rating decision, the notice of cancellation of rating classification, and the defense counsel's argument that the defendant cannot be punished in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Act, since the defendant did not know that the crime of this case was illegal.
Article 16 of the Criminal Code generally recognizes that a crime is committed but it does not constitute a crime that is permitted by law in one's own special circumstances, and it does not punish it if there are justifiable reasons for such misunderstanding.
The issue of whether there is a justifiable reason should be determined depending on whether an actor was unable to recognize the illegality of his act as a result of failure to perform his/her duty even though he/she could have been aware of the illegality of his/her act if he/she had been able to know about or inquire about the possibility of illegality of his/her act because he/she had been able to know about or inquire about the possibility of his/her act. The degree of efforts necessary for recognizing illegality should be determined differently according to the detailed situation of the act, the awareness ability of the actor, and the social group to which the actor belongs
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5526, Oct. 23, 2008). Such a legal doctrine.