A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to operate speculative business shall have facilities and speculative instruments prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration for each type of business and obtain permission therefor from the commissioner of a district police agency.

On June 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) set up five game equipment for “mail posters”, which is a speculative game product not permitted for the “C party design” operated by the Defendant on the second and second floor of Siposi, Sipo, 201; (b) without permission, set up five game equipment for the game by inserting 1,000 won or 10,000 won in the said game machine to unspecified customers so that they can play the game; and (c) set one to 64 times in the nature of the game in which the screen is consistent, and (d) conduct a speculative act without permission, by betting one to 50 cc points in accordance with the results of the betting; and (d) conduct a speculative act without permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Records of seizure and evidence of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on control field photographs;

1. Article 30 (2) 1 and Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Punishment, such as Relevant Provisions of the relevant Acts concerning facts constituting an offense and speculative acts, etc. that choose a sentence;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. of Social Service Orders;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1) of the Confiscation Criminal Act is that the defendant committed the same kind of crime, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment in 2008, and even though there was a record of being sentenced to a fine in 2013, the crime of this case is not good, but it is not good that the defendant committed the crime of this case. However, in light of the fact that the defendant is willing not to repeat the crime against his depth, the punishment is