Defendant

A, Defendant B, and Defendant C planned to engage in deceptions against the victim H known as having a usual re-refluence. On September 27, 2012, Defendant A planned to engage in deceptions. On September 27, 2012, Defendant B and Defendant C conspiredd to have the victim receive property by making the Defendant F, who is an engineer in the name of Defendant E, and by making the victim take part of the property by taking advantage of the property.

On September 27, 2012, from around 21:00 to 02:00 the following day, the Defendants: (a) replaced the card per head three times in the J golf course located in Scheon-si I by four separate pages; and (b) finally, the number of each card by a person whose total number is less than the day is fixed and who is entitled to take one half of the card at each time when he receives the card. Defendant D had a card fixed in the pre-determined order; (c) Defendant D had a flick with Defendant F; and (d) Defendant F had a flick with Defendant D’s card (one name “Man”); and (d) divided the card with Defendant D’s flick-do card; and (e) divided the card into three separate pages; (e) Defendant A, Defendant C, and Defendant E participated in the game as normal gambling; and (e) supplied the money to Defendant B and flick-ro with the money of the victim; and (e) made the money of the victim’s 2.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion and acquired the property equivalent to the above money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Relevant Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code provides that the Defendants are both aware of their mistakes and reflect their depth, and the victims of this case.