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

No person, other than the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation or an entrusted business entity, shall engage in any conduct of offering a bribe or financial benefit to a person who correctly predicted the result by issuing sports betting tickets or similar things, or gambling using such act.

During the period from November 27, 2014 to April 24, 2015, the Defendant connected to BBBL 501, which is a private sports soil website, by using a computer, deposited KRW 100,000 to a bank account in the name of (oil) or one bank account (23910203104) in the name of the account designated at the above gambling website, received the corresponding amount of money, and predicted the outcome of various sports games, such as a stable operated domestically and overseas, and received the same dividend as the betting amount.

As above, between November 27, 2014 and April 24, 2015, the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 170,133,000 over 472 times as indicated in the annexed crime list, and charged cyber money to gambling habitually.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Embling off the screen of the D gambling site;

1. Reporting on investigation (a copy of a warrant of seizure, search and inspection);

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the method and frequency of crimes in the judgment, and repeated crimes of the same kind;

1. Subparagraph 3 of Article 48 of the National Sports Promotion Act and Article 26 (1) (including the occupation of gambling and gambling for the use of prohibited acts) and Article 246 (2) and (1) (including the occupation of habitual gambling and comprehensive use of gambling) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is deemed to have been imminent by the defendant using the prohibited act as above.