A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal committed an act of viewing the network from July 2012 to July 2012 at the illegal gambling place operated by the victim C 201 of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and as a result, Defendant A received education from the victim to the effect that “On the face of the police’s crackdown, the police assigned cash at the gambling place to the normal gate, so it is necessary to have it go through and go through a long-term escape.” On July 2012, Defendant B and the above gambling place reported to the police and had the police officers control the above gambling place, and conspired to divide it against the situation where the money in the above gambling place was kept out of the door.

Thus, the defendant A reported on July 9, 2012 to the effect that he ambabling in the above place using a public telephone around the above gambling place on July 17:00, Defendant A used the air telephone around the above gambling place, and caused D to keep D from leaving the said place by controlling the above place. The defendant B did not have a wind that was discovered to the police officer dispatched to the above place while waiting for the said money at the near of the above gambling place.

The Defendants jointly carried 100,000 won a total of 18,60,000 won checks and 50,000 won bills in front of them, and attempted to commit a theft with one money owned by the victim, but did not bring about such intent.

2. The Defendant: (a) received 120,00 won daily allowances from D when he opened and operated a gambling house at the same place as from early July 2012 to September 1, 2012; and (b) aided and abetting the act of opening a gambling house by making it easy for the Defendant to look at the seat of the above gambling house and guide the customers who discovered the above gambling house in the indoor area.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The interrogation protocol of the police as to D.