Nos. 13 through 16 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

Defendant

A on February 18, 2009, a summary order of a fine of 300,000 won was issued to a member of the Suwon District Court for gambling, and on December 13, 2013, the records of the same crime are five times in total, such as imprisonment with prison labor for gambling opening at the Suwon District Court and imprisonment with prison labor for four months for gambling opening at the Suwon District Court on December 13, 2013.

On July 13, 2014, from around 22:00 to around 05:15 of the following day, the Defendants saw that, after having first four cards from the second floor of the house in Ansan-siJ from around 22:00 on July 13, 2014, the Defendants carried out gambling, i.e., approximately KRW 10,000 in the Korea-style market by placing about KRW 150,00 in total, with a total amount of KRW 40,070,000 in total, from among the last remaining cards after the final distribution, the Defendants carried on the Korean-style market by displaying three times in order.

Accordingly, the Defendants, along with the above H and I, were habitually gamblinged by Defendant A.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect against H and I;

1. Records of seizure and list of seizure of the police;

1. Photographs, etc. of seized money and valuables;

1. Habitualness of judgment: Application of statutes to the extent that gambling habitss can be recognized in light of the records of each crime and specific crime (type of gambling and amount of money sold) in the judgment;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 246(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (Preparation of Imprisonment)

B. Defendant B, C, and D: Article 246(1) of each Criminal Code (Selection of Fine)

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (Defendant B, C, and D);

1. Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant A, C, and B);

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant B, C, and D) of the Provisional Payment Order (Defendant A) (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is that the Defendant recognized the facts charged in the instant case and reflects his mistake, and that the Defendant has the time to reflect through detention life for more than five months, etc. may be considered as favorable to the Defendant.