beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
Public Prosecutor's Office
1. The defendant, who was in the line of gambling, was in the same year from February 2, 201 when he was in the line of duty;
3. Until October, 30, the Seoul Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the 1st floor house was equipped with a table, a straw, etc., which is capable of masting in the housing of Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, and a 100,000 won per person’s admission fee and 100,000 won was collected from Chinese shipbuilding groups, etc., and opened a
2. On March 10, 201, the Defendant: (a) at the place specified in paragraph (1) on March 10, 201; (b) at the same Chinese shipbuilding yard D; (c) at the same Chinese shipbuilding yard D; (d) with a total of KRW 1,190,000, and with a total of KRW 112,00, the Defendant set the line on a marina machine; and (d) with a line on a finished machine, 14; and (e) with a string pattern automatically divided by 13; and (e) with a string pattern, a person who, having the remaining persons, set the top on the floor to the floor in accordance with the picture or number, etc., set a string box by a method of giving the winners KRW 5,00 through KRW 40,000,000 according to the order of each instance.
According to the records, a person who was arrested for gambling and gambling suspicion as recorded in the facts charged and was investigated by the police was ‘F', and his/her personal information was recorded in the investigation records due to mistake, and accordingly, the facts that the personal information of the defendant, who is irrelevant to the facts charged, is stated in the indictment of this case and the summary order, can be acknowledged.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is merely a person whose personal information is erroneous in the indictment, and thus does not actually become subject to the indictment of this case. However, since the actual continuation of a lawsuit against him upon the request for formal trial of this case led to the status of "defendant" in the form and appearance, Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case in the sense that the court did not properly prosecute the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do2215, Nov. 28, 1997).