A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and a fine of five million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. 도박장소 개설 피고인은 2017. 7. 15. 01:00 경부터 같은 날 08:50 경까지 약 7시간 동안 광주 서구 B 빌딩 2 층 사무실에 도박 참가자들을 모집하여 딜러를 보면서 화투 20 장을 이용하여 5 장씩 패를 돌린 다음 5 장 중에서 3 장으로 숫자 10이나 20을 만들고 나머지 2 장으로 끝수를 비교해서 높은 숫자의 사람이 이기는 속칭 ‘ 도리 짓고땡’ 도박을 하게 하고 승 자로부터 일정한 돈을 받아 영리를 목적으로 도박장소를 개설하였다.

2. Gambling Defendant served gambling in the same way as described in paragraph 1, together with C, D, E, etc., at the time and place specified in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of some police officers against F, G, H, C, D, E, I, J, K, or L;

1. Application of statutes on records of seizure and lists of seizure;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 247 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of gambling place, the selection of imprisonment), and the main sentence of Article 246 (1) of the Criminal Act (including gambling point, and inclusive) concerning the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 38 (1) 3 of the same Act concerning the punishment of concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (limited to imprisonment with prison labor);

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act has already been subject to a fine for gambling as a crime of gambling, and two times the past ten years has served as a crime related to the operation of the illegal game room. Considering the fact that the money of gambling taken place in this case is up to ten to five million won at one time, the defendant’s confessions a criminal act, against his mistake, and the fact that the establishment of a gambling place in this case reflects the defendant’s mistake, and the benefit arising from the crime in this case is not significant, the sentence is determined as per the order, taking into account favorable circumstances, and the execution of imprisonment has been postponed by again taking into account favorable circumstances, and the prevention of recidivism and the prevention of recidivism.