A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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

Defendant from around 20:00 on August 7, 2013 to the same month.

8. From 02:00 to the Defendant’s office located in 220 Dong-dong 502, Seoul Special Metropolitan City E Apartment 220 Dong-dong 502, the Defendant opened a table, table, card, paper-to-door repair machine, etc., with four cards for the first time by using card 52 attached to the card, and the F, G, H, I, I, and J opened a 1,00 won each, with three different cards changed over three times, with a half of the market value. Ultimately, the card’sless pattern and number are different in all, and the lowest number of which are the largest, compared to those of other persons, was set up for profit-making purposes by receiving approximately 200 gambling, one hour per person, with a total of KRW 10,000,500 per person, and with a place for profit-making purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against F, G, H, I, J, and K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to entries in seizure records;

1. Article 247 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 247 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances, etc. considered favorable to the reasons for sentencing):

1. Probation and community service order under the main sentence of Article 62-2 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of the fact that the crime of gambling opening, which the Defendant committed for the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 and 2 of the Criminal Act, is highly harmful to society by promoting a speculative spirit and undermining sound labor awareness, and that the Defendant had been punished for a period of two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to habitual gambling even around 2008, the Defendant’s liability for the crime of gambling is not weak, but there is no significant amount of profit from the establishment of the gambling house in this case, and there is no benefit from the establishment of the gambling house in this case, the Defendant led to the confession of the crime, and the Defendant did not repeat the crime while his mistake is divided, considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant.