beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.11.09 2017고단119 (3)

도박

Text

The Defendant has publicly notified the summary of the judgment of innocence of this case.

Reasons

1. On October 8, 2016, from around 04:30 to 06:30, the Defendant, along with C, carried the summary of the facts charged, at the second floor of the “Empip” in Daegu-si: (a) divided the boundaries by attaching white tapes on the floor by a straight line on the white string of a short line; (b) divided the two by dividing two parts of the Chapter 51 of the 51 of the 19000, into three behind each indicated two parts; (c) if the Defendant had gambling participants take money on one side, he discarded ten units from the number calculated by adding up the numbers of the heads of the 3 of each epics to the number of pages; and (d) took the side of the remaining number of pages.

2. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true enough that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). 3. The defendant's assertion and judgment are consistent with C's contact with the defendant, and it is appropriate to find a pen in order to do gambling like the facts charged. However, since the defendant had arrived late at the time and had already participated in gambling had not been able to do gambling.

The argument is asserted.

In the prosecutor's office, "The defendant was the first person who sees in the gambling board, and then I tried to gambling several times.

“The Defendant made a statement,” and at the time of crackdown, seized the head of 150 only one thousand Won and four copies of one thousand Won Won.

Therefore, in light of these facts, the possibility that the defendant was gambling even at the time cannot be ruled out.

However, the defendant saw 1.5 million won to gambling at the time, but failed to gamble for reasons, such as the above argument.

(b) make a statement;