A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,00, and by a fine of KRW 700,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

1. From around 00:30 to 02:00 on December 19, 2014, the Defendants, along with G, received the first seven pages from Defendant B’s Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, which was operated by Defendant B, using the card, and then thrown the card if the number of three or three consecutive numbers in the same number or the same infinite pattern is at least the same. The Defendants, first of all, thrown the card by a person who thrown away all the card, and the remaining persons, take up the card from KRW 1,00 to KRW 4,00 per time in the way of imposing a fine equivalent to the card to the winners, and 30 times in total, take up the card called “hullar” with the total sum of KRW 2,628,00.

2. Defendant B violated the rules of food service business operators by providing cards and circulations to Defendant A, C and G at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, and by promoting gambling activities, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, Defendant B violated the rules of food service business operators.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Field control photographs;

1. Application of video C.D legislation

1. The Defendants: Article 246(1) (Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act; Defendant B; Articles 97 Subparag. 6 and 44(1) (Selection of Fine) of the Food Sanitation Act;

1. Defendant B from among concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants: Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order asserts that the Defendants’ assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not unlawful because they merely carried out a game with Defendant C’s money and are merely a temporary entertainment.

According to the record, it is recognized that Defendant C divided the amount of KRW 500,000 to Defendant B, A, and G.

However, according to the evidence of the ruling, the following circumstances, i.e., the defendants first made public.