도박
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. According to the statement in C’s investigative agency’s statement, etc. of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. From October 8, 2016 to 06:30 on October 8, 2016, the Defendant, along with C, etc., carried out the second floor of the “Empire” located in Daegu-si: (a) on the floor of the instant case, the Defendant divided the boundaries by attaching white tapes in a straight line on the first half-line on the floor of the Special Self-Governing Do; (b) on the surface of the instant case, marked the white tape in a single line; and (c) divided the six pages of the Chapter 51 of the Specialized City into three rears on each side indicated as above; and (d) on one side by having gambling participants take money from one side, the Defendant discarded ten units from the number calculated by adding the numbers of heading three of each Specialized City and carried out a so-called “Ambdog” so far as the remaining number is larger.
B. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant brought 1.5 million won to a gambling place and actually failed to gambling, as to the facts charged by the Defendant; (b) but (c) the Defendant did not do so.
Since it is stated, 1.5 million won cannot be deemed as direct evidence proving the fact that the defendant had been seized from the defendant on the day of the present case, and 2. Furthermore, in light of C’s legal statement, in addition to the fact that C has consistently asserted his confession from the investigative agency, the defendant was stuffed at the time only by the statement at C in the prosecutor’s office, in addition to the fact that C has consistently asserted his confession from the investigative agency.
The Supreme Court rendered a verdict of innocence on the grounds that the credibility of the contract is insufficient.
(c)
However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was gambling at the time and place indicated in the instant facts charged.
It shall be viewed.