In a case where the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract on the sale of lottery tickets with Party A, a lottery business entity; (b) concluded an agreement with Party B, who operates convenience points on the first floor of his/her own building without selling lottery tickets; and (c) made Party B, instead of selling lottery tickets, with Party B, who did not enter into an online lottery sales contract, sold lottery tickets in collusion with Party B, who did not enter into an online lottery sales contract; and (d) was prosecuted for violating the Lottery Tickets and Lottery Fund Act, the case convicting the Defendant of violation of the aforementioned Act;

The Defendant entered into a contract on the sale of lottery tickets online (hereinafter “ lottery tickets”) with Party A, a lottery business entity, entered into an agreement with Party B, who operates convenience stores on the first floor of his/her own building, instead of selling lottery tickets, to sell lottery tickets, and made Party B sell lottery tickets to an unspecified number of customers, thereby allowing Party B, who did not enter into a lottery sales contract, to sell lottery tickets for profit, and was prosecuted for violating the Lottery Tickets and Lottery Fund Act.

The case holding that the Defendant: (a) concluded a convenience store lease contract with Byung Co., Ltd. operating a franchise business and his own building; (b) concluded a contract on the sale of lottery tickets with Gap Co., Ltd., which is a lottery business operator; (c) concluded a contract on the sale of lottery tickets with Byung; and (d) operated convenience store as the main owner after entering into the franchise agreement with Byung; (c) operated convenience store; (d) operated convenience store; (e) sold lottery tickets at the convenience store; and (e) sold lottery tickets directly to customers during the time when the points do not work; and (e) the profits from lottery sales from the convenience store were deposited into the account in the name of the Defendant; (e) the remaining profits from the lottery business, other than approximately 10% of the sales amount, were deposited into the account in the name of the Defendant; and (e) Eul, transferred the head of the Tong and seal of the Defendant connected to the above account; and (e) the Defendant, even before the operation of convenience store, entrusted the management of lottery tickets sales and seal of the Defendant to other point; and (e) concluded the facts charged.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 2(1)(e) and 6(1), and 34(3)2 of the Lottery Tickets and Lottery Fund Act

Defendant

No. 500,000

Attorney Sung Chang-ho

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

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

The Defendant is a building owner located in Ulsan ( Address omitted), who entered into a contract with a lottery business entity for the sale of lottery tickets online, and Nonindicted Party 1 is a person who operates △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on the first floor of the foregoing building

A lottery business operator and a person who fails to enter into a contract for the sale of lottery tickets online shall not sell lottery tickets online for profit.

Nevertheless, from May 2017 to November 14, 2018, the Defendant entered into an agreement with Nonindicted Party 1, instead of selling online lottery tickets, to grant 10% of the online lottery sales amount to Nonindicted Party 1, and Nonindicted Party 1 sold online lottery tickets to many unspecified customers for profit without concluding a contract on the sale of online lottery tickets.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not enter into a contract on the sale of lottery tickets with the lottery business operator and sold online lottery tickets for profit in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. A written accusation;

1. A certificate of check of lottery ticket sales stores;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 34 (3) 2 and 6 (1) of the Lottery Tickets and Lottery Fund Act and the selection of fines;

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the fact that the defendant has not obtained any direct economic benefit, such as receiving a considerable amount of fees through the crime, and that the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of crime)

Grounds for conviction

In light of the following circumstances, the facts charged of the instant case where the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted 1 who did not conclude an online lottery sales contract, and sold online lottery tickets for profit-making purposes is fully found guilty.

① The Defendant, as the owner of a building indicated in the facts charged, entered into a lease agreement with Nonindicted Co. 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) who runs a franchise store from around 2006 to lease the said building as a convenience store. On the other hand, the Defendant entered into a contract on online lottery sale with Nonindicted Co. 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 3”) who is a lottery business operator, and installed online lottery ticket sales facilities in the said building.

② Around May 2017, Nonindicted Party 1 entered into a franchise agreement with Nonindicted Company 2 to use the said building as a store, and operated the said convenience store as an occupant from that time.

③ Nonindicted Party 1 had the braillers employed as part-time students sell lottery tickets at the above convenience store. Nonindicted Party 1 sold lottery tickets directly to customers during the time period during which the shoprs do not work.

④ From the above convenience store, the profit accrued from lottery sales business was deposited into the account in the name of the Defendant. The remaining profit was deposited in Nonindicted Company 3, a lottery business entity, except for the fee equivalent to approximately 10% of the sales amount. Nonindicted Party 1 entirely managed the Defendant’s passbook and seal connected to the above account by being transferred from the main owner, and accordingly, acquired the amount equivalent to the above fee as the profit accrued from lottery sales business.

⑤ Before Nonindicted 1 operated the said store, the Defendant entrusted the Defendant with the management of revenues from the lottery sales business by entrusting the Defendant’s passbook and seal to another occupant. Nonindicted 1 was aware that Nonindicted 1 had not entered into an online lottery sales contract with the lottery business entity, while operating the said convenience store anew from May 2017, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that Nonindicted 1 had not entered into an online lottery sales contract with the lottery business entity, left the facility for lottery sales as it is at the convenience store and left the issue of management and distribution of the sales business and revenues entirely to Nonindicted

(6) Meanwhile, the details paid in KRW 150,00 per month from the Defendant’s account to the above convenience store occupants are revealed to the effect that the said money has the nature of an allowance for lottery sale out of the amount of labor. However, this is merely an amount paid by the Defendant, who directly employed the above points and entrusted the sale of lottery tickets to them, but it is merely an amount paid from the Defendant’s account for the management of lottery sales proceeds under the Defendant’s name that he/she manages as part of the wage.

7) In light of the method of lottery sales business as seen earlier and the form of distributing the proceeds therefrom, it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted 1 sold lottery tickets on his own account independently from the Defendant. It is difficult to deem that Nonindicted 1 sold lottery tickets on behalf of the Defendant either in the position of the employee of the Defendant or on behalf of the Defendant based on

8) The above profit from lottery sales accounts for a considerable portion of the sales of convenience stores, and has considerable property value in convenience stores business. Such property value also serves as the factors of the increase in monthly rent even for the Defendant, who is a lessor of a building, the Defendant has been entirely responsible for lottery sales business for several years. The Defendant seems to have continuously enjoyed such intangible economic profit through this.

9) Furthermore, the Defendant merely recognized the act of selling lottery tickets by Nonindicted Party 1 or Nonindicted Party 1’s shop employees, but exceeded the acceptance of it, set up a lottery ticket sales facility equipped with the Defendant’s account at a convenience store, and entirely entrusted Nonindicted Party 1 with the management of the lottery ticket sales account. The Defendant visited the convenience store from time to time to time and checked the status of lottery ticket sales business.

Judges Song Jae-sung

(1) Around October 2017, the Defendant was found to have entered into an employment contract with Nonindicted 4 on the sale of lottery tickets. However, there was no such employment contract with other brailles, and Nonindicted 1, who is entirely responsible for the employment of workers in charge of lottery sales business, the payment of wages therefor, and the exercise of direction and supervision of duties.