logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2019.01.10 2018고정382
복권및복권기금법위반
Text

[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who entered into an online lottery sales contract with C in the trade name of “D,” and Defendant B is a person who operates F convenience points in Busan Shipping Daegu E, and Defendant B conspiredd with Defendant B to distribute profits of KRW 560,000 from KRW 560,000 per month while selling online lottery tickets in lieu of Defendant A.

Accordingly, Defendant B sold online lottery tickets to many unspecified lottery buyers who found the convenience points from January 2016 to February 2018 by using the online lottery sales contract with Defendant A without concluding a contract on the sale of lottery tickets.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the lottery business operator to sell online lottery tickets for profit without concluding a contract on the sale of lottery tickets.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of G and H;

1. Inquiry into the details of deposits and withdrawal transactions;

1. The written accusation of the Maritime Affairs and Daegu Office and the written change in the content of the request for investigation [the defendants alleged that they would jointly bear the expenses and sell lottery tickets through their employees. However, in full view of the above evidence: ① the actual B and their employees sold online lottery tickets to customers while working at convenience stores; ② the fact that Defendant A received money continuously from Defendant B (the defendants argued that they received money transfer from Defendant B as interest, etc. that they borrowed money, but the data or grounds for the real money was not disclosed, and the contents of the statement made by the investigative agency and this court are different.

(3) The fact that Defendant A could not be well aware of the personal injury or monthly salary of the convenience store employees employed by Defendant B (the employee was a convenience store employee).

arrow