2016 Highest 2213 A. Violation of the National Sports Promotion Act

(b) Fraud;

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.2. C.

He/she shall file a prosecution, and a written judgment (public trial).

Attorney D (the defendant A and the defendant for the defendant C)

Attorney E (Defendant B)

August 26, 2016

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for ten months, by imprisonment for Defendant B, and by imprisonment for six months: Provided, That the execution of the above sentence for Defendant B and C shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. Defendant C shall be put on probation. Defendant B shall be ordered to provide community service for 200 hours. From Defendant B, KRW 20 million shall be collected as penalty.

Criminal History Office

On February 1, 2016, Defendant C was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the National Sports Promotion Act, etc. at the Busan District Court’s branch, Busan District Court’s branch, and on July 8, 2016, the said judgment became final and conclusive. Defendant A, upon introducing KBO (KO) to G, which belongs to the outside side of F, and Defendant B, who belongs to the outside side of F, as one of the outside side of the outside side of F, and Defendant B, etc., as one of the outside side of the outside side of the outside side of the game, as one of the outside side of the outside side of the game, was in preparation for an exhibition of sports, and then, Defendant C, as one of the outside side of the outside side of the sports games, was able to handle money from the above G (former H) on May 23:45, 2015, and then, Defendant B and G were called as one of the outside side of the sports games at the 1st day of the sports games to use the 1stm.

1. Defendant A

(a) Li 'I vsO' games;

On May 30, 2015, the Defendant, at around L15:0, called L15:0, confirmed that L15:0 had re-exploited the game manipulation called "one-time demonstration" like the above agreement. At around L 18:30, L 18:30, L 2015 KBO Rig IvsO, which was held in the N in Gwangju, provided two practical points to the other team at one time during the 2015 KBO 'IvsO.'. The Defendant received 50,000 won of betting proceeds from this competition manipulation from L, and received 50,000 won of betting proceeds from this competition manipulation from G, and delivered 20,000 won of the market price to G in return for the above competition manipulation, and delivered 30,000 won of the 300,000 won of the 300,000 won of the 200,000 won of the 300.

(b) Qua’s IVS F Games

On July 2015, the Defendant offered to B that “The 4th learning error (not less than 6 points from a team score) ought to be made to the greatest extent possible. On that occasion, the Defendant would divide the profits earned from the betting.” Accordingly, B attempted to give a large number of points to the other team by intentionally putting out four times of the 2015 KBO Rig “I vs F”, which was put in Q Changwon-si, in S located in Qu Changwon-si, and attempted to give a large number of points to the other team on the part of the other team. However, the Defendant failed to give a large number of points due to the investment of the administration of the other team and the bad faith of the other team. Accordingly, the Defendant promised to make an illegal solicitation and to provide property to the players of sports events that fall under specialized sports.

On August 2015, the Defendant offered that “A No. 1 set off a No. 1 set of the No. 31 of the past July 31, 2015, which caused a significant loss due to failure of operation in the sports market, and thereby would supplement the above losses with success in the money.” The Defendant was successful in the operation of T 2015 KBO LI v U during the 2015 KBS 2015 KBS 2015 KBS U, but did not receive distribution because the amount of the betting proceeds in the sports manipulation was not large. Accordingly, the Defendant promised to make an illegal solicitation for sports games and to provide property to the athletes of sports events constituting specialized sports.

(d) Vi 'VS W' games;

On September 2015, the Defendant offered that “A No. 1 set off a No. 1 set. 71st July 31, 2015, the damage had not yet been recovered in relation to the operation of the winning in the games, which was held on July 31, 2015.” Accordingly, B attempted to take a net at one time among the 2015 KBO Rig Ivs’ games open from the above S, but did not seem to have a net that the other party team salpted. Accordingly, the Defendant promised to make an illegal solicitation and provide property to the players of sports events that constitute specialized sports.

2. Defendant B

(a) Li 'I vsO' games;

On May 23, 2015, the Defendant, along with the above K, G, and A, had been willing to engage in the athletic manipulation, such as one-learning demonstration in the nuclear games. At around L 18:30 L, the Defendant, at one time during the 2015 KBO 'IvsO' games held in the above N, had intentionally put up two practical points on the other team. The Defendant was issued KRW 20 million in cash from G driving in the front of the G house located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was granted KRW 20 million from G around June 8, 2015.

As a result, the defendant committed an illegal act in return for an illegal solicitation with respect to sports events constituting specialized sports, and received property in return.

B. Qua IVS F Games

After receiving a proposal for the match manipulation from A, the Defendant was trying to provide a large number of points to the other team by intentionally taking advantage of the 4th class out of the 2015 KBO Rig 'Ivs F' games held in Q Q as set forth in paragraph 1-b, but failed to provide the points due to the hos administration of the administration of the other team and the insolvency of the other team.

Accordingly, the defendant promised to receive property in return for illegal solicitation with respect to sports events falling under professional sports.

(c) Telecommunications I vs U.

After receiving a proposal from A for the game manipulation, the Defendant participated in the operation of the instant T 2015 KBO Rig held in T 2015 KBO U, but did not receive a large amount of betting proceeds from the game manipulation. Accordingly, the Defendant promised to receive and receive property in return for an illegal solicitation with respect to sports events constituting professional sports.

(d) Vi 'VS W' games;

After receiving a proposal for the match manipulation from A, as set forth in paragraph 1(d), the Defendant attempted to set a net at one time in the 2015 KBO Rig held in the V 'Ivs W’ games, but did not seem to have a net at the wind that the other team gets off. The Defendant promised to receive property in return for an illegal solicitation with respect to sports events constituting specialized sports.

3. Defendant C

L 17:00,000 won for the above 50,000 won for A 500,000 won for the betting on B 500,000 won for B 500,000 won for B 500,000 won for the above 500,000 won for B 500,000 won for the betting on B 500,000 won for the above 50,000 won for B 500,000 won for the above 50,000 won for B 500,000 won for the betting on B 500,000 won for the above 50,000 won for B 50,000 won for A, 400,0000 won for A, 400,0000 won for A 400,000 won for A 500,000 won for A 400,000 won for

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol of prosecutorial statement of Q;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment of details of transactions toC-used accounts);

1. An investigation report (verification of the results of the games suspected of being a game manipulation game);

1. An investigation report (verification of price manipulation B according to the result of analyzing the A Account Details);

1. Details of each account transaction and each currency transaction;

1. Investigation report (Analysis of account details, such as betting money C, etc. related to the operation of theLer's winning);

1. A previous conviction of Defendant C: A copy of the judgment; and

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A: Articles 48 subparag. 1 and 14-3 of the National Sports Promotion Act: Defendant C of Articles 47 subparag. 1, 48 subparag. 2, and 14-3 of the National Sports Promotion Act: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant C: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant A and B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B and C: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant B and C: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant B: Reasons for sentencing Article 51 of the National Sports Promotion Act

1. The crime of this case with common sentencing reason damages the foundation of professional sports, which is based on existence of the corrected board, and became aware of the gagical sense and confidence of citizens who expect to engage in an gaging field due to an outstanding climate, and has contributed to the promotion of sound leisure and the cultivation of sports spirit, and the crime of this case is highly likely to be committed as an object of illegal gambling, and the crime is highly likely to be committed.

Since it is the same as that a professional player renounces his/her legitimate competition with respect to the waiver of his/her existence value, such a crime cannot be paid for the crime, and further, the crime is no more likely to be committed in that it provides the fundamental cause of the crime in that the bromoer who takes the role of attracting the professional player to commit the crime. Therefore, the responsibility should be more strict.

2. Defendant B

In light of the fact that the Defendant intentionally attempted to operate a platform on four occasions, such as intentionally giving or delivering a net, and considering the fact that the Defendant received cash 20 million won in this process, the Defendant, as a promising note of the I professional camping team, shall be held liable for the act of breaking up such trust as long as he has received other expectations and love from the other pande.

However, in light of the favorable reasons for sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged of this case, against his mistake, the defendant voluntarily surrendered to the investigation agency, and the fact that the defendant actively cooperatedd in the investigation, and the circumstances of the defendant's participation, role, frequency of the crime, and the amount received in return for the manipulation of the winning, etc., the sentence

3. Defendant A

In light of the fact that Defendant A, as a broer, has served as a main role in the overall crime, and that all of the proposals for the manipulation of winnings have been made four times, a sentence of severe punishment is inevitable.

However, in consideration of the favorable reasons for sentencing, such as the fact that all of the crimes in this case are committed, and reflects the mistake, the active cooperation in the investigation was made, the fact that there was no record of the same crime, the circumstances to be supported, and the fact that there was a child, the sentence like the order shall be sentenced.

4. Defendant C. Defendant C. The nature of the crime is inferior in that Defendant C provided a fundamental cause for the crime as a former owner; however, Defendant C’s mistake and reflects his mistake, and the equity should be taken into account when the judgment is rendered simultaneously with the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Sports for the People, which became final and conclusive.

Judges Cho Dong-gu