If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

1. On July 5, 2016, the Defendant entered the office of the second floor D Association Office of the Sinsi-si Building C, which was a gambling place where gambling table was equipped with and lent a card, and received the first four copies using the card, and received the betting amount of KRW 5,000 per one, and received the plaque, and then, among the card four pages used after the final betting, a person who has a different pattern or a low number of card in the form of different from one another among the card 4 used after the final betting was a winner, and ambling “Ba” in the manner that he ambling at least five million won in total.

2. On July 9, 2016, the Defendant, along with B and his name Buddhist boxes, she saw at least KRW 6.5 million in total as stated in paragraph 1 in the manner described in paragraph 1 from “Haice” to “Haice” as indicated in paragraph 1, and gambling “Ba”.

3. On July 11, 2016, between July 11, 2016 and July 12, 2016, the Defendant, along with B and his name Buddhist boxes, carried out gambling in the manner, such as “Haak” as described in paragraph (1), with the total sum of at least five million won of the board money as described in paragraph (1), and carried out gambling.

4. On July 21, 2016, the Defendant, along with B, E, and name Buddhist boxes, posted at least KRW 500,000,000,000 in the form, as described in paragraph 1, in the “Hashes” as described in paragraph 1, and mard “Bah” gambling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police interrogation protocol to B or E;

1. Article 246 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 246 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for gambling on or around July 9, 2016, with the largest offense)

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

1. The fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is replaced by the reason for the provisional payment order, and that it is contradictory to the sentencing, shall be considered in favor of the favorable circumstances, but the size, frequency of crimes, and the fact that the defendant was punished several times for the same kind of crime, etc. shall be considered unfavorable circumstances.

This is the same.