Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendant 2)

Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 1010, Dec. 1, 2010>

Law Firm Barun et al.

1. Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da4625, 4742 (Consolidated) decided December 13, 2016, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da4625, 4742 (Consolidated) / 2. Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da5493 Decided October 26, 2017

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No5445 Decided July 18, 2017

Supreme Court Decision 2017Do13140 Decided November 14, 2017

The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years and by imprisonment for six years for Defendant 2 (Defendant 2).

Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2016Mo3752, 406 through 414, 468, 474, 476, 480 through 485, 986 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2016Mo375, 945, 954 and 987 shall be confiscated from Defendant 2, respectively.

Samsung Electronic HD TV (110 persons, UN 110S9AF) and the Home Czeer sets connected to the said TV in ancient cities ( Address 1 omitted) shall be confiscated from Defendant 2.

Defendant 1’s KRW 14,774,170,509, and KRW 11,020,335,830 from Defendant 2 shall be collected respectively.

The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.

1. The progress of judgment and the scope of judgment of this court (as to the judgment of the court of first instance)

(a) Progress of judgment;

1) Of the facts charged against the Defendants, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of Defendant 1’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling place, etc.), the establishment of gambling space, Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling place, etc.), Defendant 2’s violation of the list Nos. 298 through 564, establishment of gambling space, violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling place, etc.), violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling, etc.), habitual gambling, and violation of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (gambling, etc.), and acquitted Defendant 2 of the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling place, etc.) as to the part as indicated in Nos. 1 through 297

2) As to this, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 filed each appeal against the convicted part of the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or unreasonable sentencing as to the convicted part of the judgment of the first instance, on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and unfair sentencing.

With respect to the establishment of gambling space and violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Opening of Gambling Place, etc.) during the trial before remanding, the judgment of the court of first instance was reversed in its entirety due to changes in the facts charged as follows. The above court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal on the part which the court of first instance found Defendant 2 guilty of the establishment of gambling space and violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambing, etc.) from November 2009 to February 16, 2012 among the part which the court of first instance found Defendant 2 guilty. The court of first instance did not separately render a verdict of innocence on the remaining part which the court of first instance found Defendant 2 guilty, and the non-guilty part [the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling Place, etc.) as to the part indicated in No. 1 to No. 297 of the crime sight table No. 1 to 297];

3) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 filed an appeal against the guilty portion of the judgment prior to remand. The Supreme Court accepted the part of the judgment prior to remanding by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 as follows: (a) the opening of a gambling space by Defendant 1; (b) the opening of a gambling space by Defendant 2; (c) the establishment of a gambling space by Defendant 2; (d) the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling, etc.); (e) habitual gambling; and (e) the use and protection of credit information; and (e) the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of facts as to the Defendants’ violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling, etc.) in the judgment prior to remand; and (e) reversed this part of the judgment prior to remanding, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment as to the Defendants’ violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling, etc.). The remaining portion of the judgment rendered one sentence

B. Scope of adjudication of this Court

1) Of the judgment of the party prior to remanding, Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (abstinence, etc.) on the part indicated in the No. 1 through No. 297 (the part of the judgment of the court below’s acquittal), Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (abstinence, etc.) on the same part (the part of the judgment of the party prior to returning), Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (abstinence, etc.) from November 2009 to February 16, 2012 (abstinence, etc.) did not appeal by the prosecutor, but Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (abstinence, etc.) on the part of the crime list No. 298 through 564 (abstinence, etc.), establishment of gambling spaces, and Defendant 2’s habitual gambling.

However, this part of the judgment of the court of final appeal cannot be judged as a result of the prosecutor's failure to file an appeal, which goes beyond the scope of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, it cannot be judged as a part of the judgment of the court of final appeal. Therefore, the court of final appeal which reversed and remanded the case on the ground that the appellate court's judgment of conviction was erroneous cannot be tried and judged again as to the acquittal portion and sentenced guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 191, etc.).

2) In addition, Defendant 1’s establishment of gambling space in the judgment prior to the remanding of the Defendants, establishment of gambling space by Defendant 2, violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.), habitual gambling, mistake of facts against the use and protection of credit information, and misapprehension of legal principles on this part of the grounds of appeal are rejected as it is judged that there is no justifiable ground in the final appeal, and thus, the final judgment of the judgment of the court of final appeal becomes final and conclusive at the same time with the judgment of the court of final appeal. Thus, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 cannot dispute this part, and the court to which they were remanded cannot make a decision contrary thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do920, May 11, 2006, etc.). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of final appeal prior to the remand of this part shall be followed.

3) Therefore, the actual subject of the judgment by this court is the part of the Defendants’ violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (in the case of Defendant 2, excluding the part which was judged not guilty in the trial prior to remand) and the part of confiscation and additional collection.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

1) The first instance judgment (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A) Considering the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the additional collection amounting to KRW 52 billion against Defendant 1.

(1) The amount of collection recognized by the court below against Defendant 1 is merely obtained from the total amount of crime to deduct the remaining amount of co-defendants from the total amount of crime, and there is a logical disagreement in the recognition method.

Shebly, considerable parts of the co-defendants constitute the profits of the co-defendants who are overlapping or not yet opened with the profits of the other co-defendants, as well as the lack of evidence to prove the above in addition to Defendant 1’s vague statements, it is ultimately impossible to specify Defendant 1’s criminal proceeds.

B) The crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) and the establishment of gambling spaces constitute a single comprehensive crime as a business principal, and even though a single act constitutes an ordinary concurrent relation corresponding to several crimes, the court below judged the above crimes as a substantive concurrent relation and erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation of acceptance of crimes.

C) While the list of crimes, which are part of the facts charged, was submitted to CDs, the lower court did not take any measures for specifying the facts charged and further erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the facts charged.

D) The first instance court did not provide any reasonable grounds when sentencing a sentence exceeding the highest sentencing guidelines set forth in the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines, and omitted the evidence submission of Defendant 1’s criminal facts.

E) The sentence of the first instance court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 52,237,570,510) is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s judgment (e.g., punishment)

The punishment of the second instance court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2 (Court of First Instance)

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Defendant 2 did not engage in “issuance of sports betting tickets or any similar things,” or providing property or property benefits to a person who correctly predicted the outcome, through a site that connects 16 foreign sports betting sites (hereinafter “instant relay site”) such as “○○○○○○○,” and “▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△”. Accordingly, Defendant 2 may be held liable for the violation of Article 26(2)3 of the National Sports Promotion Act, not Article 26(1) of the same Act, but Article 26(2) of the same Act.

B) Defendant 2 is not in the position of the presiding official with respect to the establishment and operation of △△△△○○○, a gambling place, and so there is no room for establishment of the crime of opening gambling spaces under Article 247 of the Criminal Act. Even if the crime of opening gambling spaces is established, Defendant 2’s creation of the instant transit site is before April 5, 2013, and thus, Article 247 of the former Criminal Act prior to the amendment by April 5, 2013 ought to be applied.

C) Although the first instance court determined that Defendant 2’s crime of opening gambling space and violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) committed against Defendant 2 as substantive concurrent crimes, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes.

D) Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, the part relating to habitual gambling (Gambling, etc.) and habitual gambling is generally indicated as follows: (a) the timing and termination period of and proceeds from the commission of the crime; and (b) the method of committing the crime; (c) the frequency of all the crimes; and (d) the amount of money in the board; etc. are not indicated in the facts charged against Defendant 2. Even if considering the characteristics of a single comprehensive crime assessed as a single crime through the intermediary of habitual nature, the facts charged are not entirely specified as constituting a crime that interferes with the Defendant’s defense right to resist the existence of dampness or part of the facts charged.

E) Article 48 Subparag. 1 of the National Sports Promotion Act, which is a provision punishing a person committing gambling by using similar acts prohibited by Article 26(1) of the same Act, was newly established and implemented on February 17, 2012. Therefore, prior to February 17, 2012, an act prior to the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) cannot be punished as a violation of the National Sports Promotion Act.

F) Evidence of the fact that Defendant 2 obtained approximately KRW 500 million criminal proceeds does not have any exception to Defendant 2’s statement.

G) Defendant 2’s “(vehicle registration No. 1 omitted)” No. 4 in the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds was temporarily returned to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2, the owner, and thus, Defendant 2 cannot collect 140,000,000 won corresponding to the said vehicle on the premise that Defendant 2 acquired the said vehicle.

H) Regarding the violation of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act, ① Defendant 2 requested Nonindicted 3, who had already operated an unauthorized credit information company, to conduct a back-site investigation, such as the privacy of Nonindicted 4, and did not let Nonindicted 3 make a resolution on the commission of a crime to conduct a private investigation, etc.; ② Nonindicted 3 already committed an illegal act, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant started to conduct a private investigation, etc. only by the Defendant’s commission of an investigation, such as the privacy, etc. of Nonindicted 4. Thus, Defendant 2 cannot be established as a teacher of the violation of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act against Defendant 2.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court of first instance (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection 316,135,830 won) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor (State 1 2)

The punishment of Defendant 2 of the first instance court (limited to six years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 316,135,830) is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

1) Ex officio destruction due to changes in indictment

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor examined the case ex officio prior to the remanding, and the Prosecutor permitted the part of the judgment of the first instance judgment [2016Da4625] in the “specific criminal facts of February 2, 201],” “as shown in the separate list of crimes,” as shown in the attached Table “A summary of the funds in the list of crimes (from February 17, 2012 to April 22, 2015).”

In addition, in the facts charged against the violation of each National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) and the establishment of gambling spaces in the first instance trial, the prosecutor changed the phrase “any person, other than the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation or the entrusted business entity, shall not provide property or financial benefits (hereinafter “similar act”) to a person who issued sports betting tickets or similar things and issued them, and shall not provide the system of issuing sports betting tickets or similar things to the public for use.” The prosecutor changed the phrase “any person, other than the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation or the entrusted business entity, shall not do any act of providing sports betting tickets or similar things through an information and communications network for use.” The first part of the facts charged as to the establishment of gambling spaces, “The defendant,” the last part of the facts charged as to the establishment of gambling spaces, in collusion with Nonindicted 1 (Gambing, etc.) and other similar acts, and at the same time, the defendant opened a sports betting tickets or a similar act in collusion with the public for the purpose of using it as an information and communications network.”

Therefore, since the subject matter of the judgment was changed due to the charges that were modified twice as above, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants could no longer be maintained in this respect.

2) Ex officio destruction due to consolidation

Defendant 1 appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of second instance decided to jointly examine the two appeals cases. Each of the above offenses against Defendant 1 is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single punishment should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part against Defendant 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained.

3) Sub-determination

As above, there is no further need to determine the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds that there was a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as stated in Article 2.2. A. (1)(c) of the Defendants’ assertion (Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act that the facts charged were not specified by the CD submission) and Defendant 2’s assertion as stated in Article 2.2(b)(1)(a) of the aforementioned Act (Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act).

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendants' remaining arguments of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the revised charges. Thus, the following should be examined.

B. Determination of the number of crimes against violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (such as gambling opening, etc.) and the establishment of gambling spaces (common assertion)

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act and the establishment of gambling spaces constitutes several crimes and are in a mutually competitive relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18119, Jan. 12, 2017).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which decided each of the above crimes as substantive concurrent relations is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes. Thus, this part of the defendants' assertion is with merit.

C. Determination as to the assertion that Defendant 1 did not state reasonable grounds while making a judgment deviating from the sentencing guidelines

Article 81-7 (1) of the Court Organization Act provides that "the law officer shall respect the sentencing criteria when selecting the kinds of punishment and determining the periods of punishment: Provided, That the sentencing criteria shall not have the legal binding force," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "where the court makes a judgment deviating from the sentencing criteria, it shall state the reasons for sentencing in the judgment: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases where the judgment is rendered under the summary proceedings or the summary trial proceedings."

Article 1. 1. b) of the judgment of the court below, which determined the sentencing guidelines for Defendant 1 as an aggravated area (one year and six months to four years), and sentenced to four years and six months of imprisonment. However, Article 2. A. 1 of the "the grounds for the sentence" provided in Article 2. 2. A. 1 of the "the grounds for the sentence" provided common matters concerning Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and Article 2. 2. 3 of the "the grounds for the sentencing" provided by Article 1. 1. 2. 3 of the "the grounds for the sentencing of Defendant 1," and thus, it cannot be accepted.

D. Judgment on the assertion that Defendant 1 omitted Defendant 1’s explanation of evidence

The judgment of the court below of first instance is clear that the evidence of the defendant 1 is proved to have been proved to have been proved to have been in the part of the crime except for the three points and habitualness in the judgment of the court below in 2016Da4742), (2) [excluding the three points and habitualness in the judgment of the court below (No. 3)], (3) [Habitualness], and the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (No. 2016Da4625) against the defendant 1 and the crime of opening gambling spaces are all included in the judgment of the court of first instance in 2016Dadan4742, and most evidence are identical.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of Defendant 1’s assertion.

E. Determination on Defendant 1’s opening of gambling space, opening of gambling space by Defendant 2, violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.), habitual gambling, and violation of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act

The Defendants’ allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is about the part that does not fall within the scope of the judgment of this court, as seen earlier. Accordingly, this part of the judgment of the court prior to the remand or the judgment of remanded case is subject to the judgment of the court of appeal, and the Defendants’ allegation in each of the grounds of appeal is not acceptable except for the part of Article 2 (2) of the “not guilty part” (Judgment as to Defendant 2’s allegation in Article 2.2

F. Determination on the assertion of additional collection charges

1) Defendant 1

A) Relevant legal principles

Property arising from the gambling opening of Article 247 of the Criminal Act shall be subject to collection in accordance with subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment”), and the above collection in accordance with subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment”), Article 8, and Article 10 of the same Act shall not be held. Thus, where several persons jointly acquire profits from gambling opening, only the distributed amount, namely, the profit actually accrued, shall be individually confiscated, and where it is impossible to determine the distributed amount, the distributed amount shall be equally confiscated and collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4640, Nov. 30, 2007, etc.).

In addition, whether the subject of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, and the recognition of the amount of collection is not related to the constituent elements of crime, so strict certification is not necessary, but also, it is reasonable to recognize it by evidence, and if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not be collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014, etc.).

B) Of the evidence No. 559 of the evidence list No. 2016 senior group 4625 senior group 6) No. 559 (Preparation of the list of receipt of criminal proceeds by each suspect), whether Defendant 1’s list of acquisition of criminal proceeds (the same as the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds by Defendant 1; hereinafter “Defendant 1’s acquisition list”) is the amount distributed to Defendant 1 or the profit substantially reverted to Defendant 1.

(6) The evidence list 2016Kadan4742 is generally composed of Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5, the co-defendant 4, and the protocol of examination of evidence by the prosecution, premised on the evidence list 2016Kadan4625. The main contents are as follows; hereinafter referred to as “Evidence List 2016 Godan4625” are referred to as “Evidence List.”

No. 2016, No. 4625, No. 2016, No. 4625, No. 4625, No. 27466, No. 27466, No. 27466, No. 46666 (Evidence No. 2646, No. 46666, No. 27666, No. 466666 (Evidence No. 246666, No. 4666666, No. 2742, No. 46666666, No. 4666666, No. 2742, No. 2424666, evidence of the prosecutor’s office)

(i) The calculation method and basis of the additional collection charge against Defendant 1 of the lower court

The first instance court calculated 52,237,570,510 won, 510 won, which was the sum of the values of the goods confiscated by Defendant 1 (Evidence No. 384 through 390, 406 through 414, 468, 474, 476, 480 through 485, 986), from the aggregate of the values of the goods forfeited by Defendant 1 in the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds of crime by Defendant 1.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the trial before remanding, in particular, each organization prepared by the co-offenders 5 or Defendant 2 [347, 8105 pages of evidence No. 2016Kadan4625 (hereinafter “Evidence Records”)] Defendant 1 can be acknowledged as having managed the funds under Non-indicted 1, etc.’s order as a total domestic financial policy, and used a “laundry” or used a real estate purchase at home, as a corporate investment scheme. Defendant 1 also stated that Defendant 1 had stated that he had carried out the business of withdrawing and investing gambling proceeds at the request of Non-indicted 1 at the investigation agency (Evidence No. 8183 of the Evidence Records). In light of the following, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 stated in each column of the above crime acquisition list, which was executed by Defendant 1 in the course of performing a general financial policy at home, as a profit distributed to Defendant 1 or a profit substantially accrued to Defendant 1.

Secondly, the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles in the calculation of the amount to be collected by deducting the value of the goods confiscated from Defendant 1 in the aggregate of KRW 52,610,445,951, on the grounds that the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds by Defendant 1 was either the amount distributed to Defendant 1 or the profit actually reverted to Defendant 1.

C) Determination of an appropriate deliberation on the calculation of the additional collection charge against Defendant 1

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court prior to remand, the items that can be deemed to have been distributed to accomplices, including Defendant 1, in the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds, shall be classified. ② Other items that cannot be determined with the money reverted to a specific accomplice shall be equally divided, and the surcharge against Defendant 1 shall be imposed.

(i)The facts taken into account in calculating the additional collection charge.

㈎ 피고인들 및 관련 주요 공범들의 체포 경위 등

① Information on Nonindicted 4 (Evidence No. 17)

On August 12, 2014, Defendant 2 made a statement as the victim on August 12, 2014 as to the violation of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act against Defendant 2, and informed Defendant 2 that Defendant 2 relays the foreign sports sports betting site, such as ○○, in connection with organized violence.

(2) Defendant 2

Around 14:00 on April 22, 2015, the police was present at the police station, and was investigated by the police from 23:00 on the same day (Evidence No. 375 of the Record) to be present again on the following day. On April 23, 2015, at around 02:00 of the same month, the Hong Kong flight was scheduled to leave the port of Incheon on the same day (Evidence No. 491 of the Evidence Record), and the person was arrested at the Cheongdo Office while moving to Busan on June 29, 2016.

(3) Defendant 1

On April 7, 2016, knowing the fact that an investigation is being conducted in connection with the operation of the transit site of this case, the person was arrested at the Incheon State's supply port on June 24, 2016 (Evidence Records No. 7261).

(4) Co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial on an accomplice.

On June 24, 2016, Defendant 1 voluntarily surrenders to the police in a soup or soup, etc. (Evidence No. 7315 of the record).

⑤ Nonindicted 6 of the accomplices

On October 9, 2015, Nonindicted Party 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1 stated the general role and gambling account of the instant relay site four times, including the protocol of interrogation of police officers, etc. (Evidence No. 1495, 1690, 1702, 2469).

㈏ 범행기간 동안에 입금된 도금

During the operation of the transit site of this case, the defendants transferred the proceeds of crime to the front of the passbook, the intermediary passbook, the back passbook, etc. (Evidence No. 7346 of the evidence record), and it is not easy to calculate the correct amount of the total amount of the face-to-face.

However, according to the evidence list No. 560 investigation report (Calculation of adding gambling funds and earnings) the Defendants received the general sales right on the foreign sports betting site from September 1, 2012 to April 9, 2016, when the Defendants operated the transit site of this case, the Defendants’ total revenues amount to KRW 4,153,416,110,755, and the total revenues amount to KRW 4,038,784,47,67,63, and KRW 114,631,63,092, and the total revenues amount to KRW 114,631,63,092 were calculated. In addition, when Nonindicted 6, who was in charge of exchanging and shocking the transit site of this case, made a statement from the investigative agency to KRW 5,000,000,000 daily revenues amount to KRW 1,500,000,000,000 won.

㈐ 피고인들의 범행가담 기간 동안 인정되는 범죄수익금

As seen below, Defendant 2’s participation in the instant crime during the period acknowledged as having been in part in the instant crime, Defendant 2, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, appears to have acquired KRW 173,925,405 by exchanging KRW 181,24,83,430 through the 267 accounts from No. 298 to April 22, 2015, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, the sum of funds in the attached Table of Crimes (from February 17, 2012 to April 17, 2015).

In addition, during the period recognized by Defendant 1 as participating in the instant crime, the Defendants, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, received 19,227,208,035 won through 74 accounts from 491 to 564 from 464 of the said attached Table, and exchanged 54,606,023,085 won to exchange 64,621,184,950 won.

㈑ 소결

In light of the above account analysis and the amount of gambling funds and proceeds according to the statements of accomplices, and the amount of proceeds from crimes during each period of crime, etc., at least the following items shall be deemed to be the property derived from the criminal proceeds or criminal proceeds arising from the instant crime by free certification, and this shall be subject to the collection.

B. Items that may be deemed to have been distributed to the accomplices, including Defendant 1, and to have been reverted to a specific accomplice.

본문내 포함된 표 연번 개요 금액 분배받은 자 증거관계 등 1 도박 생활비 등 기타 잡비 46억 원(10억 원만 인정) 피고인 1 도박 금액 10억 원은 인정하고, 나머지 36억 원은 연번 2와 중복되거나 증거가 부족하다고 판단, 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 2 36개월간 매월 1억 원씩 수익금으로 취득 36억 원(23억 원만 인정) 피고인 1 피고인 1은 3년간 매월 1억 원씩 수익금을 취득하였다고 진술하고 있으나, 피고인 1의 이 사건 범행기간(2013. 4.~ 2015. 4. 22.)인 점을 감안하여 24개월 미만의 기간인 23억 원만 인정하고, 나머지 부분은 증거가 부족하다고 판단, 피고인 1에 대한 제1, 5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 4 공소외 8 주거지 ◎◎동 ◁◁◁◁ 매입금액으로 사용 29억 원 공소외 1 공소외 8은 공소외 1의 배우자로 공소외 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단, 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 증 제579호(◁◁◁◁계약서), 증 제607호(영수증) 16 (차량등록번호 2 생략) 벤츠 차량 구입비용(공소외 9) 4,500만 원 공소외 9 공소외 9가 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4637, 4638면), 공소외 9에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 17 페라리 베를리레타(공소외 10 회사 리스) 6억 4,000만 원 공소외 1 공소외 1이 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4619, 4620면), 공소외 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 19 공소외 11 명의 투자금 400만 원 피고인 1 피고인 1의 배우자 공소외 11 명의로 투자한 것으로, 피고인 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 20 람보르기니 차량 구입비용 7억 2,000만 원 공소외 1 공소외 1이 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4620, 4621면), 공소외 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 24 (차량등록번호 3 생략) 레인지로버 차량 구입비용(공소외 12) 2억 원 공소외 12 공소외 12가 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4637면), 공소외 12에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 25 (차량등록번호 4 생략) 벤틀리 슈퍼스포츠 차량 구입비용 3억 원 피고인 1 피고인 1이 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4633, 4634면), 피고인 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단. 변호인은 공소외 1의 내연녀 공소외 13이 사용하였다고 하나, 공소외 13이 사용한 차량은 (차량등록번호 5 생략) 벤틀리로 보임(증거기록 제4363면) 26 번호불상의 벤츠 AMG 차량 구입비용 1억 8,000만 원 피고인 1 피고인 1이 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4633면), 피고인 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단. 변호인은 피고인 2가 사용하였다고 하나, 피고인 2가 사용한 차량은 (차량등록번호 1 생략) 벤츠G바겐 차량으로 보임(증거기록 제692면) 28 벤츠G바겐 구입 및 튜닝비용 3억 원 공소외 1 공소외 1의 배우자 공소외 8이 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4632면), 공소외 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 29 피고인 주거지 ▷▷▷▷▷▷ 월세금 6,000만 원 피고인 1 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 공소외 9 제2회 경찰 피의자신문조서 30 강남구 삼성동 ▷▷▷▷▷▷ ♤♤♤호 보증금 1억 원 피고인 1 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 공소외 9에 대한 제2회 경찰 피의자신문조서 32 롤스로이스 팬텀드롭 헤드 쿠페 구입비용 7억 원 공소외 1 공소외 1이 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4627면), 공소외 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 33 벤츠 G바겐 차량 구입비용(공소외 14) 5,000만 원 공소외 14 공소외 14이 사용한 자동차이므로(증거기록 제4636면), 공소외 14에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 34 청담동 ♡♡♡ 매입금액으로 사용 13억 원 공소외 1 공소외 1의 배우자 공소외 8이 살던 곳이므로(증거기록 제4960면), 공소외 1에게 이익이 귀속되었다고 판단 39 주식투자로 2억 원을 수수하였으나 투자손실로 압수한 금액은 74,029,491원 125,970,509원 피고인 1 2억 원에서 이미 압수된 74,029,491원(증 제986호)을 공제한 금액 피고인 1이 분배받은 금원 합계 : 4,069,970,509원(주8)

Note 8) 4,069,970,509

ally, items that cannot be determined with money allocated to a specific accomplice, as well as Defendant 1

㈎ 아래 항목은 피고인 1이 이 사건 범행으로 얻은 범죄수익을 유지, 이전하고, 그 이후의 새로운 범죄수익을 얻기 위하여 지출한 내용이거나 범죄수익을 은닉할 목적으로 자금세탁 등의 방법으로 투자를 선택한 것으로, 범죄수익 또는 범죄수익에서 유래된 재산으로 볼 수는 있지만, 특정 공범에게 귀속된 것으로 보기 어렵다.

본문내 포함된 표 연번 개요 금액 증거관계 등 3 공소외 15 투자명목 9억 5,000만 원 공소외 15가 설립한 철강회사 설립자본금으로 지급됨(증거기록 제8057면) 5 공소외 4 투자금액 20억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 공소외 4에 대한 경찰 진술조서 6 공소외 16 회사 설립자본금 10억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 공소외 9, 공소외 5에 대한 경찰 피의자신문조서 7 자금세탁을 위해 피의자 공소외 5를 부(부) 이름으로 대출받고, 이에 상응한 현금을 지급한 뒤 대출액에 대한 이자 별도 납입 6,000만 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 8 ●●리조트 회원권 구입비용 3억 1,260만 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 9 공소외 10 회사 투자금 3억 5,000만 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 공소외 17에 대한 경찰 진술조서 10 피의자 공소외 5에게 카지노 환전소 운영권 취득 명목으로 투자 11억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 11 울진땅 투자금액 3억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 12 공소외 18 회사 투자금 40억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 증 제577호 13 공소외 19 운영 공소외 20 법인 투자금액 5억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 공소외 19에 대한 각 경찰 피의자신문조서 14 공소외 21 회사 투자금 80억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 15 채석장비 업체대표 공소외 22에게 투자 2억 1,000만 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 18 공소외 23 회사 투자금 40억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 21 대림동 환전업자 공소외 24에게 송금하여 환치기 후 해외 송금 2억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제3회 경찰 피의자신문조서 22 피의자 공소외 5에게 제1 원심공동피고인 2 경찰수사 무마대가로 현금지급 2억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 23 ▲▲사 위패사업 투자금 23억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 27 가평 펜션, 바지 및 수상스키 보트 매입 등 8억 5,000만 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 31 공소외 25 주식회사 투자금 1억 5,000만 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서 36 피고인 2에 대한 경찰수사 무마대가로 공소외 26에게 전달한 포르쉐 911 구입비용 1억 8,000만 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 공소외 30에 대한 경찰 진술조서 37 대림동 환전업자 공소외 24에게 송금 5,000만 원 피고인 1에 대한 제3회 경찰 피의자신문조서 40 한남동 고급빌라 청약금 1억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제5회 경찰 피의자신문조서, 공소외 31에 대한 경찰 진술조서 41 대림동 환전업자 공소외 22에게 송금 3억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제3회 경찰 피의자신문조서 56 피고인의 주거지에서 발견된 범죄수익금에 대한 영수증 7억 원(인정된 금액은 0원) 증 제416호, 연번 5번 항목과 중복(증거기록 제8047면) 67 대림동 환전업자 공소외 32에게 송금 50억 원 피고인 1에 대한 제3회 경찰 피의자신문조서 68 술값 등 접대비용 36억 원(인정된 금액은 0원) 증거가 부족하고, 연번 5번 항목과 중복될 여지가 있음 합계 32,112,600,000원

㈏ 위 금원은 누구의 수익으로 귀속되었는지 확정하기 어렵고, 따라서 이를 평등하게 분할한 금원을 추징하여야 한다.

① In light of the fact that Defendant 2 received a large amount of profit from the overseas sports sports sports betting site as the word “breging,” and that Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 2 visited Defendant 2 and proposed the opening and operation of the instant transit site, Defendant 2 concluded a license agreement with Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 30, the Australian branch, together with Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 30, in order to deem that Defendant 2 is in the position of dividing the profits of the instant transit site into the profits of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, Defendant 2, who is in charge of overall planning, opened and operated the instant transit site, and Defendant 2, who is an accomplice, was in charge of overall planning, and opened and operated the instant transit site, and each organization prepared by Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2 (Evidence No. 3347, 8105, the evidence record).

② Although Defendant 1 was in charge of the total amount of money in the Republic of Korea and was ordered by Nonindicted 1 or Defendant 2, Defendant 1 had a considerable discretion in the Republic of Korea and executed gambling revenue in the Republic of Korea, a considerable number of investors involved were aware of Defendant 1 as actual operators (Evidence Records No. 3371, 3393, 5342, 5344), Defendant 1 managed gambling revenue through Nonindicted 31 and Nonindicted 9, etc. or invested in other businesses (Evidence Records No. 3437, 4293), Defendant 1 brought a fixed amount of KRW 100 million every month from domestic revenue at the investigative agency, and Defendant 1 did not appear to have received KRW 30,00 won per month if he combines the money used to be deducted (Evidence Records No. 7256), Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 1 stated in the investigation agency’s statement to the effect that there were no more than KRW 75,000 in Korea’s statement to the effect that there were no more than 75.75.

③ Therefore, it is reasonable to divide the above money equally among Nonindicted 1, 2, and 1. Of the above money, the money to be collected from Defendant 1 is KRW 10,704,200,000, which corresponds to KRW 1/3 of the above money.

x. Items scheduled to be confiscated after seizure

If it is deemed impossible to confiscate property to be confiscated or inappropriate to confiscate such property, an amount equivalent to its value shall be collected (Article 10(1) of the Regulation on Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment). As such, among the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds with respect to Defendant 1, the following items intended to be confiscated shall be excluded from the additional collection charge:

The criminal proceeds discovered from 40,000 won and 200,000 won and 500 won and 74,000 won and 74,00 won and 50,00 won and 47,00 won and 50,00 won and 47,00 won and 50,00 won and 47,00 won and 47,00 won and 506,00 won and 47,00 won and 50,000 won and 47,00 won and 50,000 won and 47,00 won and 50,000 won and 50,00 won and 47,00 won and 506,00 won and 50,00 won and 406,00 won and 506,00 won and 787,00 won and 506,00 won and 67,00 won and 4,00 won of the defendant's dwelling.

(v) the sum to be collected from Defendant 1 is KRW 14,774,170,509, including ① the sum of the amounts distributed by Defendant 1 and ② the sum of the amounts distributed by Defendant 1, among items that cannot be determined with the amount distributed, KRW 10,704,200,000, which are equally divided to Defendant 1.

2) Defendant 2

A) Of the investigation report No. 559 of the evidence list (Preparation of the list of criminal proceeds by suspect), the court below collected the remaining amount 316,135,830 won, excluding the amount confiscated [Attachment Defendant 2, No. 3 (170,000 won), No. 7 (3.4 million won), No. 8 (10,770,000 won), and No. 316,135,830 won [Attachment Defendant 2, No. 3 (170,000 won), No. 3 (10,070 won), No. 9 (31,070,00 won), and No. 10 (700,000 won)].

B) However, as seen in the above 3.f. (f) 1(c) and 10,704,200,000 won, which is equivalent to 1/3 of the amount distributed among the co-offenders, among the amounts used by Defendant 1, as seen in the above 3.f.(c) ? ? (i) the above 32,12,600,000 won, which cannot be determined by the co-offenders, should be collected from Defendant 2 (the defense counsel of Defendant 1 claimed that Defendant 1’s list of acquisition of criminal proceeds belongs to Defendant 2, but it is difficult to conclude that the above property belongs to Defendant 2 even if based on each statement made by Defendant 1, Nonindicted 32, and Nonindicted 9’s investigative agency, and rather, the above investment content is used to maintain or conceal the gambling proceeds of this case).

C) Defendant 2’s defense counsel asserts that the amount distributed should not be collected equally among Nonindicted 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 13, not by equally dividing the amount, but by equally dividing the amount among several accomplicess. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 2 was in charge of the entire planning work upon the proposal of Nonindicted 1 and opened and operated the relay site of this case. Defendant 1 also appears to have been in the position to receive distribution of the proceeds of the crime of this case in light of the importance of the role, even if it falls under the lower part than Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 2, it is difficult to view that the rest of the accomplices were in the position to receive distribution of the proceeds of the crime of this case, since it is difficult to view that they were merely an employee who received benefits from Defendant 1, etc. and was in the position to receive distribution of the proceeds of the crime of this case, it is reasonable to view that the items that cannot be determined as the amount belonging to a specific accomplice should be attributed to Nonindicted 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1 to 1/3 equally.

D) In addition, Defendant 2’s defense counsel argues that the timing when Nonindicted 1, 2, and Defendant 1 participated in the operation of the transit site of this case differs, and thus, the criminal proceeds accrued during that period are different. At least Defendant 2 asserted that it was not in the position of dividing Nonindicted 1 and criminal proceeds from February 2012 to September 201, and thus, Defendant 2 is not in the position of dividing them into two separate charges. As such, it is reasonable to view that the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds under the Criminal Report No. 559 of the evidence list (Preparation of the list of receipt of criminal proceeds by each suspect) prepared based on the following facts: (i) the legal principles related to the collection as seen earlier; (ii) the amount of gambling funds deposited during the entire period of crime; (iii) the amount of criminal proceeds from each of the Defendants’ respective crimes; and (iv) the amount of acquisition of criminal proceeds pursuant to the Criminal Report No. 559 of the evidence list (Preparation of the list of receipt of criminal proceeds by each suspect), regardless of the participation of Nonindicted 1, 2, and the following Defendant 1/3.

E) Meanwhile, Defendant 2’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant 2’s collection of KRW 140,00,000, which is the value of the above vehicle, cannot be made on the premise that Defendant 2 acquired the above vehicle, on the ground that Defendant 2 had already returned the “WenG vehicle” No. 4 in the list of criminal proceeds.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above vehicle had already been temporarily returned to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2 (Evidence No. 23). However, Defendant 2 received a distribution of criminal proceeds and paid part of the proceeds as living expenses to Defendant 4, who is the wife. Defendant 4 was 1,191,075,070 (see the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds of Defendant 4, the court below's co-defendant 4), and even if the above assertion was accepted and calculated most favorable to Defendant 2, the amount acquired by Defendant 2 is 1,367,210,90 won [the amount excluding the amount confiscated from the list of crimes acquired by Defendant 2] - KRW 1,316,135,830 (the remaining amount excluding the amount confiscated from the list of crimes acquired by Defendant 2), KRW 140,00, KRW 200, KRW 197, KRW 2000 (the amount distributed to Defendant 107, KRW 2010, KRW 47100

However, the judgment of the court of final appeal shall be reversed by the defendant's final appeal, and if the case is remanded to the appellate court, the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration shall not apply to the relation with the judgment of the court below before the remand and a sentence more severe than the reversed appellate court's judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 64Do298, Sept. 17, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 92Do2020, Dec. 8, 1992; 2005Do8607, May 26, 2006); and in this case, the defendant 20,00 won of the judgment of the court of final appeal before the remand cannot be recognized as more than the amount of additional collection (11,020,335,830 won) of the judgment of the court of final appeal before the remand under the above principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. Accordingly, this part of the argument cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed on the grounds that there are the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and some of the defendants' arguments against the judgment of the court of first instance are with merit. Since the guilty part and the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the acquittal part of the grounds against the defendant 2) with the above reasons for reversal are in a blanket relationship, concurrent crimes or commercial concurrence with each other under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without any judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing against the defendants and the prosecutor, and the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the judgment below

In addition, the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of defendant 2 among the judgment of the court of first instance is without merit as examined in paragraph (1) of "the acquittal portion" as follows, and as long as the part against defendant 2 is reversed in the judgment of first instance, it is not necessary to dismiss the prosecutor's appeal in principle, but it is dismissed in the text of the judgment in a declared sense.

[2016 Highest 4625] - Defendant 1

No one shall provide a system of issuing sports betting tickets or similar by means of information and communications networks for the public to use, and no one may open any place or space for gambling for profit.

1. Public offering relations and allocation of roles;

From September 9, 2012, Nonindicted 1 entered into a public auction in order with Defendant 2, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 49, Nonindicted 19 (hereinafter “Defendant 2, etc.”) and the Defendant, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 445, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 19, and Defendant 2, who opened an overseas sports betting site (hereinafter “overseas betting site”).

Accordingly, Nonindicted 1 plays a general role in managing the operation of the above relay site and the fund management; Defendant 2 took a role in creating, developing, and conducting other general planning; Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 33; entering into and maintaining a contract with the headquarters of an overseas website; Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, and Nonindicted 36; Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 47 play a role in developing, maintaining, and repairing programs of each relay site; Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 46, and Nonindicted 47 play a role in filling and exchanging game money; Defendant 1 manages gambling proceeds under the instructions of Nonindicted 1; Defendant 1, as a domestic total amount of money; Defendant 2, at the first instance co-defendant 2, at the order of Defendant 1; Defendant 2, who removed or returned gambling proceeds from overseas; and Defendant 1, who transferred money back to Nonindicted 19 to Nonindicted 2.

2. Specific criminal facts;

피고인과 제1 원심공동피고인 2는 공소외 1 및 피고인 2 등과 위와 같이 순차적으로 공모하여 2013. 4.경부터 2015. 4. 22.경까지 필리핀 마닐라시 소재 상업중심지인 ■■■ 지역에 위치한 ‘◆◆◆ 빌딩’ 21층 및 ‘★★★ 빌딩’ 24층 VIP 룸 등에 컴퓨터와 인터넷 통신기기 등을 갖추어 놓고 ‘☆☆☆☆☆☆.com', '▽▽▽▽-▽▽▽.net' 등 도메인을 사용하여 16개 가량의 중계사이트를 개설, 운영하면서 불특정 다수의 내국인들을 회원으로 모집하고 회원들로 하여금 위 중계사이트를 통해 ‘○○○(영문표기 1 생략)’, ‘△△△(영문표기 2 생략)’에서 제공하는 야구, 축구, 농구 등 국내·외 각종 스포츠 경기의 승부에 베팅을 하게 하여 베팅이 적중할 경우 미리 정해진 비율에 따라 환전을 해주고, 적중되지 못하면 그 베팅금을 자신들이 취득하는 방법으로 중계사이트를 운영하여 별지 ‘범죄일람표 자금 요약내역(2012. 2. 17.~2015. 4. 22.까지)’ 기재 중 순번 491번 계좌부터 564번 계좌까지 74개의 계좌를 통해 119,227,208,035원 상당의 도금을 입금받은 다음 54,606,023,085원을 회원들에게 환전하여 주고 64,621,184,950원 상당을 수익금으로 취득하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant and the co-defendant 2 of the first instance court set up a space for gambling at the same time by providing sports betting tickets or similar things to the public through information and communications networks in collusion with Nonindicted 1, etc.

[Defendant 2016 Highest 4742]- Defendant 2

1. Violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling place, etc.), and opening of gambling space;

No one shall provide a system of issuing sports betting tickets or similar by means of information and communications networks for the public to use, and no one may open any place or space for gambling for profit.

(a) Public relations and allocation of roles;

From September 2012, Nonindicted 1, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 49, Nonindicted 19, and Nonindicted 2, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) made a separate public auction agreement with his head office in order to operate the said foreign sports betting site (hereinafter referred to as “foreign sports ticket brokerage site”), Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 2, and Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, who opened the lower court’s office, provided various overseas sports betting tickets (hereinafter referred to as “foreign sports tickets”) in which it is impossible to participate in the public auction in Korea (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”).

Accordingly, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 33 play a general role in exercising overall control over the operation and fund management of the above relay site; the Defendant is another general responsibility in charge of planning, including the proposal and development of the members and profit structure; Defendant 1, as a domestic financial unit, manages gambling income under the order of the above Nonindicted 1; Defendant 1, as a physical measure; Defendant 38, as a financial unit in Korea; Nonindicted 30 and Nonindicted 33, as a domestic source of funds, invested and managed gambling income generated from overseas in connection with Defendant 1 in Korea; Nonindicted 30 and Nonindicted 33, as an overseas source of funds; Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, and Nonindicted 36, as the head office in charge of developing and maintaining programs of each relay site; Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 47, and Nonindicted 47, as the head office in charge of filling and exchanging game money; and Defendant 12, as the joint manager of the lower court’s order to transfer money back to the said domestic source of money to Nonindicted 1.

B. Specific criminal facts

피고인은 위와 같은 공모 및 역할 분담에 따라 공소외 1 등과 함께 2012. 10. 1.경부터 2015. 4. 22.경까지 필리핀 마닐라시 소재 상업중심지인 ■■■ 지역에 위치한 ‘◆◆◆ 빌딩’ 21층 및 ‘★★★ 빌딩’ 24층 VIP 룸 등에 컴퓨터와 인터넷 통신기기 등을 갖추어 놓고 ‘☆☆☆☆☆☆.com', '▽▽▽▽-▽▽▽.net' 등 도메인을 사용하여 16개가량의 중계사이트를 개설, 운영하면서 불특정 다수의 내국인들을 회원으로 모집하고 회원들로 하여금 위 중계사이트를 통해 위 ‘○○○(영문표기 1 생략)’, ‘△△△(영문표기 2 생략)’에서 제공하는 야구, 축구, 농구 등 국내·외 각종 스포츠 경기의 승부에 베팅을 하게 하여 베팅이 적중할 경우 미리 정해진 비율에 따라 환전을 해주고, 적중되지 못하면 그 베팅금을 자신들이 취득하는 방법으로 중계사이트를 운영하여 별지 ‘범죄일람표 자금 요약내역(2012. 2. 17.~2015. 4. 22.까지)’ 기재 중 순번 298번 계좌부터 564번 계좌까지 267개의 계좌를 통해 355,170,288,745원 상당의 도금을 입금받은 다음 181,244,883,430원을 회원들에게 환전해 주고, 173,925,405,315원 상당을 수익금으로 취득하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, offered a system that issues sports betting tickets or similar things through information and communications networks for public use, and at the same time opened a space for gambling for profit-making purposes.

2. Violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) and habitual gambling.

No person shall gamble by using any similar act.

그럼에도 피고인은 2009. 11.경[국민체육진흥법위반(도박등)의 점에 관하여는 2012. 2. 17.부터] 포항시 ▼▼동에 소재한 주거지에서 컴퓨터로 불상의 운영자가 개설한 인터넷 사설 스포츠토토 사이트에 접속하여, 그곳에서 제공하는 국내·외 축구, 야구, 농구, 배구 등 각종 스포츠경기의 승무패에 돈을 걸어 그 결과에 따라 돈을 따거나 잃는 방식으로 도박을 한 것을 비롯하여, 그때부터 2012. 9.경까지 같은 방법으로 약 500여개의 사설 스포츠토토 사이트에 접속하여 약 5억 원 상당의 수익을 거두었다.

As a result, the defendant gambling by using similar acts at the same time, and habitually gambling.

3. A teacher in violation of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act;

No one, other than a credit information company, etc., shall engage in business to find out a certain person's whereabouts and contact details or investigate his/her private life, other than commercial transaction relationships, including financial transactions

In operating the transit site like paragraph (1) of Article 1, the Defendant: (a) accessed the victim Nonindicted 4, who is an overseas pre-paid card business operator, and he stored a friendship; and (b) proposed a business to contact pre-paid cards on the said transit site; (c) however, the Defendant was willing to request an unauthorized credit information business operator to investigate the victim’s privacy, etc. by taking the weak points of the victim’s refusal to do so; and (d) was willing to request it

피고인은 2014. 5. 말경 고양시 (주소 2 생략) 소재 ‘웨스턴타운 오피스텔’에서 금융위원회의 허가를 받지 아니한 채 ‘◀◀◀◀◀◀’라는 상호로 사람찾기, 가정문제 해결, 신변보호, 역할대행 등을 주요업무로 하는 무허가 신용정보업체 운영자 공소외 3에게 “피해자의 주거지 등 사생활을 뒷조사 해달라”고 의뢰하면서 대금으로 1일 150만 원씩 합계 4,000만 원을 교부하였다.

Accordingly, Nonindicted 3, along with his employee Nonindicted 51 and Nonindicted 52, found the residence of the victim and his family members or took pictures and videos related to their privacy in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-si, and Jeonnam-si by means of driving or observing lockedly the victim and his family members from the Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-si, and Jeonnam-si.

Accordingly, the Defendant instigated the operation of the unauthorized Credit Information Company by Nonindicted 3, etc.

"2017 Highest 5493"- Defendant 1

피고인은 공소외 1, 피고인 2 등과 함께 ‘○○○’, ‘△△△’ 등의 해외 유명 스포츠토토 도박 사이트를 국내에 중계하는 사이트(‘▶▶▶▶▶▶', '▽▽▽▽-▽▽▽')를 운영하는 자이고, 공소외 31은 위 운영을 도운 자이다.

피고인의 스포츠토토 도박 사이트 운영 공범인 피고인 2는 2015. 4. 22. 23:00경 경찰에서 도박 사이트 운영 혐의로 조사를 받고 난 뒤 중한 처벌이 예상되자 도피할 것을 마음먹고 피고인에게 연락하였고, 이에 피고인은 공소외 31에게 연락하여 ‘피고인 2가 경찰에 쫓기고 있으니 숨어 지낼 곳을 마련해달라’고 부탁하였다. 이에 공소외 31은 피고인, 공소외 53(공소외 31의 양아버지로 ▲▲사 주지) 및 모친 공소외 54와 공모하여 2015. 4. 23.경부터 2015. 9.경까지 경남 합천군 (주소 3 생략)에 있는 공소외 54의 집 등지에 은신처를 마련하여 피고인 2를 머물게 하는 방법으로 범인을 은닉하였다.

Nevertheless, when Nonindicted 31 was prosecuted and tried for committing an offense, such as concealment of the above offender, the Defendant appeared in the Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan8356 decided Feb. 23, 2017, which was located in Seocho-dong, Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan8356 decided Feb. 14, 2017, as a witness for the following testimony:

1. The witness responded to the question of the prosecutor’s “I had no contact with the Defendant after having been contacted by Defendant 2,” “I had no contact with the Defendant (Defendant 2)” and “I had no contact with the Defendant. I have called son. I have called son. I have called. I have called son.”

2) The witness answers to the prosecutor’s question, “after he was informed of the prohibition of departure by Defendant 2, he did not have attempted to flee with the Defendant. I talk with Nonindicted 1. The author talked with the Defendant.”

③ Defendant 2 was prohibited from departure, and answer to the Prosecutor’s question “I need not have any fact with the Defendant.”

④ The witness answer to the prosecutor’s question, “I need not directly contact the Defendant and directly contact him to Nonindicted 54, the Defendant’s mother, and talked with “I see that I will hiding Defendant 2.”

5. The defendant answers to the prosecutor’s question that “I do not know at the time, and her mother calls her mother only at the time,” by directly phoneing the defendant’s mother to the witness, and that “I am not able to conceal the defendant 2 and I am not directly asked by the defendant.”

6. I asked Non-Indicted 54, his mother, Non-Indicted 54, to conceal Defendant 2, and asked Non-Indicted 54, to “I will not see the prosecutor’s question, “I will not see. I will do so, and she will do so one day? I asked her mother to her mother. I answer to the Defendant’s uneasy, “ how I will see how I will be sentenced to the Defendant’s punishment and Defendant 2 punishment.” At the end, I asked her mother, “I will see how I will be sentenced to the Defendant?” and the witness, “I will not talk with the Defendant before sending the Defendant 2. I will answer the prosecutor’s question.”

7) The witness answers to the prosecutor’s question, “it is necessary to see that he/she has made a statement that he/she hidden Defendant 2 at the Defendant’s house without any doubt in advance with the Defendant,” and answer to the prosecutor’s question, “It is not necessary that the witness makes a false statement that is not related to the Defendant as to the concealment of Defendant 2 in the Defendant’s house,” and “It is not necessary that he/she makes a false statement that is not related to the Defendant’s concealment of Defendant 2 at the Defendant’s house.”

8) The Defendant, even if hiding Defendant 2, asked the mother of the Defendant, who was in no way aware of his address, to answer the question of the judge’s “I would have been able to fluently? I would have her fluent and fluent. I would have now known the mother’s address.”

9)In response to the judge’s question, “whether or not the defendant was asked to the mother of the defendant, not the defendant, rather than the defendant?” Then, the mother made a call to the mother rather than the defendant, and the mother made a call to the new wall after drinking alcohol, and the mother visited the defendant and sent a large number of fakes to the defendant.” On the new wall, it is difficult to see that it is difficult to understand that the mother was a witness rather than the defendant through the defendant.” However, from the point of view, I asked the judge’s question whether it is difficult to understand. However, from the point of view, I would like to see that “I are going well in Seoul,” and answer “I are going well in Seoul.”

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory and raised perjury.

【2016 Highest 4625】

1. Defendants’ legal statement before remanding each part of the case

1. Defendant 1’s oral statement in each court below

1. Defendant 2’s partial statement in the original trial

1. Each prosecutor's suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each police interrogation protocol on Defendants 1, 2, 2, and 11 of the co-defendants 4, 6, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 50, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 59, Nonindicted 55, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 56, and Nonindicted 11 of the original trial.

1. The statement of each police statement on Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 58, Nonindicted 59, Nonindicted 60, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 61, Nonindicted 62, and Nonindicted 56

1. A statement prepared by Nonindicted 7

1. Statement of seizure of each police;

1. Each investigation report;

【2016 Highest 4742】

1. Defendants’ legal statement before remanding each part of the case

1. The defendant 1 and the co-defendant 2 of the court below's oral statement in each court below

1. Defendant 2’s partial statement in the original trial

1. Each prosecutor's suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each police interrogation protocol on Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 56, and Nonindicted 11, respectively.

1. The statement of each police statement on Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 58, Nonindicted 59, Nonindicted 60, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 61, Nonindicted 62, and Nonindicted 56

1. A statement prepared by Nonindicted 7

1. Statement of seizure of each police;

1. Each investigation report;

[2017 Highest 5493]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Search of Nonindicted 31B’s case

1. Protocol of examination of the witness by the defendant 1 of the person under investigation;

1. Investigation report (Evidence No. 139);

1. Non-Indicted 31’s judgment (2016 Highest 8356)

【Habituality】

In light of the fact that Defendant 2 repeatedly committed the instant gambling crime for a period of up to three years, and that the proceeds therefrom exceed KRW 500 million, etc., Defendant 2 may be recognized as a habitive wall.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 1: Article 48 subparag. 4, Article 26(2)1 of the National Sports Promotion Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of providing for the public use of the issuing system of sports promotion betting tickets, etc.), Article 247, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the point of opening gambling spaces), Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2: Article 48 Subparag. 4, Article 26(2)1 of the National Sports Promotion Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of an issuing system for sports promotion betting tickets, etc. to the public), Article 247, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the opening of gambling spaces), Article 48 Subparag. 3, Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act (including the occupation of gambling using similar acts, including the occupation of gambling), Article 246(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 50(2)7 of the former Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (amended by Act No. 13216, Mar. 11, 2015); Article 31(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13216, Mar. 11, 2015);

1. Commercial competition;

(a) The Defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (mutual between the crimes of violating the National Sports Promotion Act and the establishment of gambling space)

(b) Defendant 2: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act ( mutually between the crimes of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling) and the crimes of habitual gambling)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Confiscation;

Articles 8(1)1 and 8(1)2 (property derived from criminal proceeds) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do11586, May 23, 2013; 201Do1586, May 23, 2013)

1. Additional collection:

Articles 10(1) and 8(1) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the instant relay site operated by the Defendants in collusion with Nonindicted 1 et al. only connects to the foreign-use sports betting site (hereinafter “foreign sports betting site”) such as “△△△” and “○○○○,” and that such links cannot be deemed as “providing a system that generates sports betting tickets or similar for the public to use” under Article 26(2)1 of the National Sports Promotion Act.

Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act prohibits a person, other than the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation or an entrusted business entity, from issuing sports betting tickets or similar things (including issuing them through information and communications networks) and providing property or property benefits (hereinafter referred to as “similar acts”) to the person who correctly predicted the result. The purport of Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act was to prevent the operation of illegal sports gambling business by preventing the acts related to similar acts even though they did not reach the “similar acts” under Article 26(1), and by punishing the persons who violated such acts, thereby prohibiting the acts closely related to the similar acts and effectively (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1819, Jan. 12, 2017).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, the Defendants concluded a transit contract with the operator of the foreign sports betting site and secured the right to relay, which is the total sales, so that they can use the sports betting system in real time through links to the domestic users who join the above foreign sports betting site. ② In the case of ○○○○, which is the largest foreign sports betting site, the Defendants have exclusive rights in Korea, and ③ in order for domestic users to use the foreign sports betting site, it is necessary to use the foreign sports betting site by blocking the access of the major foreign sports betting site to the foreign sports betting site, and ④ if the domestic users who join the above domestic sports betting site are deposited in the foreign sports betting site, it is difficult for them to use the above domestic sports betting site through the foreign sports betting system.

In full view of the legislative intent and contents of the relevant legal provisions and the above facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants’ act of providing convenience such as charging and exchanging to the users who join the instant transit site, securing the right to relay from the foreign sports betting site and real-time linking the said foreign sports betting site through links to the instant transit site constitutes “an act of providing a system that generates sports betting tickets or similar through an information and communications network under Article 2(2)1 of the National Sports Promotion Act for the public to use” as stipulated in Article 2(2)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and thus, the Defendants and defense attorneys’ allegation in this part is rejected.

1. Defendant 1

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1) Class 1 (Sautism and game software)

【Scope of Recommendation】

Illegal Sports Gambling, etc.> Type 3 (Similar Sports Land) Aggravated Area (1 June to 4 years)

[Special Mitigation (Aggravated Aggravation)]

Where a person commits a crime in an organized manner by sharing the roles of the self-denunciation or internal accusation / Where he/she leads to the planning or implementation of the crime or plays a key role in the crime, and the scale of profit or business from the crime is very large.

(ii) Class 2 (Perjury).

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 1 (Perjury) : Basic Area (6-1 June to June)

3. Handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months to four years; and

2. Defendant 2

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

【Scope of Recommendation】

Illegal Sports Gambling, etc.> Type 3 (U.S. Sports Land) : Special Dance Area (1 to June 6)

【Special Person under Guard】

Where a large number of persons have committed a crime systematically by sharing their roles, and where they are led to planning or implementation of the crime or play a key role, and where the amount of profit or business from the crime is very large.

【Disposition of Multiple Crimes】

Since crimes for which the sentencing criteria are not set are concurrent, compliance with the lower limit of the scope of the recommended sentence of the above sentencing criteria shall be observed.

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Common matters;

The Defendants’ act of committing the instant crime causes serious social harm, such as promoting excessive gambling to the general public and impairing the sound sense of work, causing failure to lead to the failure of the economy and home life of the general public, etc. It is inevitable to punish the Defendants, considering the following: (a) the period of committing the instant crime is a long-term period; (b) the amount of betting money and the profits of the betting money are equal to a astronomical number; and (c) whether the Defendants are subject to the instant additional collection charge, without paying the additional collection charge corresponding to criminal profits, at all, by making it clear whether the Defendants would be subject to the instant additional collection charge.

B. Defendant 1

Although Defendant 1 was a primary offender and a self-denunciation, he was in charge of managing gambling proceeds exceeding 50 billion won as a domestic financial policy. When an investigation was conducted by an investigative agency, he escaped abroad. Meanwhile, perjury requires strict punishment due to the size of social harm, such as causing confusion and incompetence in the judicial action of the State, due to the act of hindering the discovery of substantial truth of the judicial agency and the appropriate exercise of judicial power through this act, etc. Furthermore, although the Defendant’s perjury did not affect the result of the judgment, it was about the main issue of the judgment, and other sentencing conditions, such as Defendant 1’s age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are considered to have exceeded the maximum limit of the sentencing range of sentencing guidelines.

C. Defendant 2

Although Defendant 2 was the first offender, the degree of participation is very important as a total measure to plan the instant crime with Nonindicted 1, and when an investigation by an investigative agency was conducted, the fact that Defendant 2 escaped and was arrested only for one year after the escape, and other factors such as sentencing conditions, such as Defendant 2’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., shall be determined as per the order.

Note 12) The non-guilty part

1. As to the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) and the opening of gambling spaces among the facts charged against Defendant 2

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

피고인 2는 공소외 1 등과 함께 2012. 2.경부터 2012. 9.경까지 필리핀 마닐라시 소재 상업중심지인 ■■■ 지역에 위치한 ‘◆◆◆ 빌딩’ 21층 및 ‘★★★ 빌딩’ 24층 VIP 룸 등에 컴퓨터와 인터넷 통신기기 등을 갖추어 놓고 이 사건 중계사이트를 개설, 운영하면서 불특정 다수의 내국인들을 회원으로 모집하고 회원들로 하여금 위 중계사이트를 통해 위 ‘○○○(영문표기 1 생략)’, ‘△△△(영문표기 2 생략)’에서 제공하는 야구, 축구, 농구 등 국내·외 각종 스포츠 경기의 승부에 베팅을 하게 하여 베팅이 적중할 경우 미리 정해진 비율에 따라 환전을 해주고, 적중되지 못하면 그 베팅금을 자신들이 취득하는 방법으로 중계사이트를 운영하여 별지 ‘범죄일람표 자금 요약내역(2012. 2. 17.~2015. 4. 22.까지)’ 중 1 내지 297번 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 같은 기간 297개의 계좌를 통해 326,167,534,010원 상당의 도금을 입금받은 다음 209,320,856,347원을 회원들에게 환전해 주고, 116,846,677,663원 상당을 수익금으로 주13) 취득하였다.

Accordingly, Defendant 2, in collusion with Nonindicted 1, opened a space for gambling at the same time for profit-making purposes.

B. Determination

1) First, in the trial of the court of first instance, the prosecutor revised the facts charged as to the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (i.e., opening of gambling places, etc.) and the establishment of gambling spaces among the judgment of the court of first instance [2016dan4742] and the facts charged as to the opening of gambling spaces, and the part of the facts charged also changed into “an act of providing sports betting tickets or a system issuing similar things to the public for use by means of information and communications networks.” This court permitted this, and this court permitted Defendant 2’s application for changes to the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling places, etc.) on March 15, 2018. As seen earlier, Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling places, etc.) with regard to the parts indicated in subparagraphs 1 through 297 of the list of crimes committed by the court of first instance before remand, and thus, it cannot be subject to changes in the indictment. Accordingly, the party member is revoked the prosecutor’s decision to permit this part as well.

2) Furthermore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2 constitute a case where there is no evidence of criminal facts as stated in Article 2. e. 3(e)(3) of the judgment of the party before remanding the case, and as such, it constitutes a case where there is no evidence of criminal facts as to the crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Opening of Gambling, etc.) and the crime of opening of gambling spaces under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the crime of opening gambling spaces, so long as the facts charged in this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2 are pronounced guilty

2. As to Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.)

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

No person shall gamble by using any similar act.

그럼에도 피고인은 2009. 11.경부터 2012. 2. 16.까지 포항시 ▼▼동에 소재한 주거지에서 컴퓨터로 불상의 운영자가 개설한 인터넷 사설 스포츠토토 사이트에 접속하여, 그곳에서 제공하는 국내·외 축구, 야구, 농구, 배구 등 각종 스포츠경기의 승무패에 돈을 걸어 그 결과에 따라 돈을 따거나 잃는 방식으로 도박을 하였다.

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged against Defendant 2 constitutes a case where the penal law was newly established on February 17, 2012 and enforced on the same day, as seen in Article 2.f. 2(f)(2)(c) of the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case, and thus, the facts charged prior to the enforcement does not constitute a crime, so the facts charged prior to the enforcement should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the court pronounced guilty of habitual gambling crimes in the judgment in which there are mutual concurrences, the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case shall not be pronounced not guilty.

Judges Cho Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) On March 27, 2017, the Defense Counsel Law Firm (LLC) No. 12 of the Pacific Opinion (No. 715 of the public trial record) and No. 4 of the same defense counsel’s written opinion dated April 21 of the same year (No. 754 of the public trial record)

Note 2) Of the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the allegation of mistake of facts as to the portion of acquittal that has been separated and finalized is not stated separately.

3) The contents of the application for changes in indictment do not coincide with those of the specific facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da4625, Apr. 22, 2015) and can be seen as making changes only with respect to the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da4625, Apr. 22, 2015). However, the circumstance behind the prosecutor’s application for changes in indictment is to specify the facts charged as to the portion submitted in CDs. As such, all of the additional CDs in the facts charged are deemed to be changed to “a summary of funds in the list of crimes (see, e.g.,

(4) Defendant 2’s defense counsel withdrawn the same assertion on the fourth day of the trial prior to remand.

5) However, the lower judgment stated this part as “2017 Highest 4742,” but is an obvious clerical error in “2016 Highest 4742.”

Note 6)

Note 7) The above investigation report is identical to the evidence Nos. 30 in the evidence list 2016 senior 4742 against Defendant 2. Meanwhile, the above Defendant 1’s acquisition list of criminal proceeds omitted No. 35 per year, but the number of the years indicated in the above list for specific convenience should be used as it is.

Note 8) The sum of the amounts in column 1 (Recognition of KRW 1 billion out of KRW 4.6 billion), 2 (Recognition of KRW 2.3 billion out of KRW 3.6 billion), 19, 25, 26, 29, 30, 39 (Recognition of KRW 125,970,509, subtracting the seized KRW 74,029,491 out of KRW 200,000) on the list of acquisition of criminal proceeds of Defendant 1’s crime

9) The facts charged are “as of February 2012.” However, as seen earlier, Defendant 2 operated the instant relay site with Nonindicted Party 1 from September 2012 to September 2012, thereby recognizing it as around September 2012.

10) The indictment is written as “Article 50(3)3.” However, according to Article 14(Transitions) of the Addenda to the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (Act No. 13216, Mar. 11, 2015), it appears that the foregoing applicable provisions of law are erroneous.

Note 11) Defendant 2-2’s supplement of Defendant 2’s grounds for appeal on February 21, 2017 (see, e.g., Court Records No. 680)

Note 12) As seen earlier, the part on Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) with respect to the part on Defendant 2’s list Nos. 1 through 297, which found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of its reasoning, as to Defendant 2’s violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (the part on innocence), establishment of gambling space (the part on innocence), and violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) from November 2009 to February 16, 2012, the first instance court’s conclusion shall be followed.

Note 13) Since the amount of money exchanged and the amount of revenue in the judgment of the party prior to remand appear to be error in calculation, the above correction was made as above.