When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant and C, D, E, and F are those engaged in transportation business, and they are those who work in the same occupation.

At around 19:30 on February 17, 2017, the Defendant, jointly with C, received the first seven pages by means of a card at the I Office adjacent to the H station located in Incheon Strengthening Group G, and followed by a number of not less than three consecutive numbers in the same number 3 or in the same infinite pattern, and first, the person who would thrown away, first of all, and the remainder, by giving a fine equivalent to the remaining card to the winners, 31,000 won per time in total seven minutes between 10,000 won and 311,000 won per page.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol concerning suspect interrogation of the police in relation to C, D, E, or F (temporary gambling);

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 246 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. The defendant asserted that the defendant's act of using a card with C, etc. as the facts charged falls short of the size of the board money, friendly relations, types and purposes of card games, etc., such act is merely a temporary entertainment and thus, it is not illegal.

The limit of illegality in the crime of gambling should be specifically determined by referring to all the circumstances, such as the time and place of gambling, the social status and degree of property of gambling persons, the nature of property, and other developments leading to gambling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do2096, Nov. 12, 1985). However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the place where the instant gambling act occurred, i.e., the place where the instant gambling act was obstructed from the outside of a container office at the construction site, and ii).