Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From February 16, 2016 to 02:00 on the same day, the Defendant, along with C, D, and E, received the first card using the card in “G” located in Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon from around 00:00 to 02:00 on the same day, and then, issued the card to 7 pages each, and then, if the number of the same number 3 or the same infinial pattern is not less than 3 consecutive numbers, the Defendant may set up the card, and first set up the card to 1,00 won, which is called “hulh” in the way of paying 1,30,000 won each by 1,00,000 won according to the number of lights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of each police officer with respect to D, C, E, or H (temporary gambling);

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of a copy of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 246 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts that the above gambling act was about to escape after drinking at the time of drinking, and that it is not illegal as it is merely a temporary entertainment level.

However, the limit of illegality in the crime of gambling should be determined specifically by referring to all the circumstances such as gambling time and place, gambling workers’ social status and property level, property status, and other developments leading to gambling (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2096, Nov. 12, 1985, etc.). However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court are as follows: ① as a taxi engineer, the Defendant was a taxi engineer, ② the location was separated from the restaurant, ② the employees of the restaurant at the time were no person having access to the restaurant; ③ the Defendant used it for gambling with the proprietor; ③ the Defendant used for gambling with the proprietor; and ③ the Dombling C et al. as well as the gambling engineer at around 2011.