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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

From around 16:00 to 19:00 on August 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) provided “D” restaurant operated by the Defendant in Gwangju-dong-gu, with 48 copies of e, F, and non-legal men, and (b) provided them with 200 won per point, with the knowledge that one male, namely, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, and e, e, e, and provided them with 200 won per unit; and (c) provided them with a similar gambling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of some police officers against the accused, E, or F;

1. A written statement prepared by the defendant;

1. Investigation reports (on-site situations, etc.);

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 246 (1) and Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act mitigated for aiding and abetting, and Article 55(1)6 of the same Act

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion did not have the intent to assist the defendant in gambling, and the acts as indicated in the reasoning of E, etc. are limited to the degree of temporary entertainment. 2. Determination on February 1, 200, the defendant, while taking into account the following: (a) the details of gambling, such as E, and the money, etc., relatively accurately stated in the police; (b) the fire and cruel money used in his gambling, not only owned by the defendant, but also the fact that the cafeteria was temporarily set up at the time of the police’s dispatch; (c) the structure and size of the cafeteria; and (d) the continuous hours of gambling, such as E, he may sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant, knowing

B. Considering the occupation, trade relationship, the size of seized money, the content and duration of the act, etc., of A, etc., it cannot be deemed that the act as stated in its reasoning is limited to the degree of temporary entertainment.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's arguments are not accepted.