If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

From around 03:00 on June 3, 201 to 16:00 on the same day, the Defendant, along with F and G, got off 10,00 won each by 10,000 won when he received the first card by using 52 cards from the house of Gangnam-gu Seoul H 403 by using 52 copies of the card. On three occasions, the Defendant marddddddddddddddddddddddd by 150 times in a way that each time he altered the card, and the number of the 4 card finally possessed is different and the number of the card differs each by 150 times in the order of a person whose number is low.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of witness G and F in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes in which respective statements of witnesses G, I and F are written in the third protocol of trial;

1. Relevant Article 246 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 246 (1) of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The scope of punishment: A fine not exceeding five million won;

2. Although there are circumstances leading to a considerable degree of money needed for the instant gambling, the punishment is to be determined by taking into account the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the crime, and that there was no criminal record for the same kind of gambling.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On June 3, 2011, at around 16:00 on June 3, 201, the Defendant threatened the victim I by saying, “A victim I was sentenced to the same punishment that G had engaged in gambling, and upon the scambling, G had five card and asked that he had five card, but the victim refused it, and reported to the police to “the victim,” thereby threatening the victim.

B. Around June 3, 2011, the Defendant was deprived of approximately KRW 20 million while a Baduk was stuffed in the house of the I as indicated in the judgment of the court below, but the Defendant was deprived of approximately KRW 20,000,000,000, but the victim G was able to engage in gambling. The Defendant was able to collect the card from the defective victim, and boomed the victim’s name by the double hand, and international PPJ by telephone.