Defendant

A, B, C, D, E (1957 Livelihood), G (1951 Livelihood), and H shall be punished by a fine of 3,00,000,000 won, Defendant I, and J, respectively.

Criminal facts (as to the remaining Defendants except the Defendant F), the said Defendants, from around 0:00 on October 15, 2013 to around 3:30 on the same day, set up in the Gambling L in the former North Korea-gun, together with M, etc., sought a place, divided into 6 O and X2: one ambling on the floor by using 51 amblings into O and X2, and then, one ambling the gold in a way that the last place is high in number by adding up three ambling numbers to the last place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each of the above Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each interrogation protocol of the prosecution against N orO (including copies thereof);

1. Each protocol and list of police officers;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of seized articles;

1. The main sentence of Article 246 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The part not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders (with respect to Defendant F)

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: from October 15, 2013 to March 3:30 of the same day, the Defendant, along with M, etc., found a place in the gambling room set up in the former North Korean War L from around 0:0 on October 15, 2013 to the same day; and, using Chapter 51 of the chemical speculation, divided the 6th lux in the floor into O and X two lux; and then, the Defendant, using Chapter 51 of the chemical speculation, sing down a gold on one of the luxs and carried out a 'road lux' gambling in a way that the sum of the lux numbers of the three luxs is high.

2. In light of the fact that the above defendant consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court that he did not know about himself, and there is no person who stated that the above defendant was gambling among the persons related to this case, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the above defendant was gambling as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged against the above defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.