Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Maternho

Attorneys Hwang Ho-sung et al.

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2007Kadan1698, 2190 (Consolidated) Decided December 11, 2007

The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for four months and by imprisonment for four months, respectively.

The 136-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 4.

Defendants 1, 3, and 4 are not guilty of any violation of the Act on Gambling and Gambling, from April 2006 to May 2006, 206, from May 1, 2006 to June 2006, from May 1, 2006 to June 2006, and the violation of the Act on Sound Records, Video Products, and Game Products (class violation).

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts

The defendant is not a real manager of Sick Sick, and since the concentration control of gambling games sites has discontinued all business around May 10, 2006, the defendant did not participate in the operation of gambling games sites in collusion with the defendant 4 after the date and time.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the degree of participation, etc. of the defendant, the sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts

The Defendant did not commit the instant crime in collusion with the remaining Defendants.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if the defendant's conviction is recognized, in light of the fact that the defendant was sick or her mother, the sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant 3

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Around May 2006, the Defendant, at the request of Defendant 4, had a society at a project presentation meeting in the form of a table between Defendant 1 and Defendant 4, and did not commit the instant crime in collusion with the rest of the Defendants.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if the defendant's conviction is recognized, in light of the fact that the degree of participation of the defendant is minor, the sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant 4 (Indecent Act)

In light of the fact that the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of crime, that the defendant is deeply divided into the crime of this case, and that the defendant must support his elderly's father and children, the sentence of the court below (ten months of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Destruction ex officio due to changes in indictment; and

Before determining on the grounds for appeal above, since the public prosecutor's indictment was legally modified by ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below based on the facts constituting an offense before the amendment of indictment and applicable provisions of Acts cannot be maintained.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts or unreasonable sentencing, on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows through pleading.

Defendant 4 is the representative director of Scam Scing Scling Co., Ltd., the Internet gambling game operation company, and Defendant 2 was sentenced on March 26, 2004 by the Seoul Central District Court for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night and joint injury) at the Seoul Central District Court on December 22, 200 of the same year and the execution of the sentence is terminated at the Cheongju Prison. The Defendants are directors of the same company, in collusion with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2, for the purpose of profit-making;

2006. 7.경부터 같은 해 8. 8.경까지 사이에 서울 강남구 삼성동 소재 공항터미널 인근 건물 3층에서, 피고인 4는 위 ‘주식회사 머니머니썬’이란 법인명으로 인터넷 도박게임 사이트의 영업을 맡는 총판을 설립하고, 피고인 2, 1은 가맹점을 모집하는 딜러를, 공소외 2는 가맹점 피씨방에 피씨 및 랜선 설치 등을 맡기로 하고, 서울 동대문구 ○○동 (이하 생략) 소재 공소외 3 운영의 ‘ ○○PC방’ 등 가맹점을 모집하여 위 공소외 3으로부터 게임머니 대금으로 피고인 4의 신한은행 계좌로 100만 원을 송금받는 등 위 가맹점으로부터 가입비, 피씨 및 랜선 설치 대금, 게임머니 대금 등의 명목으로 돈을 받아 위 가맹점 업소에 위 온라인 도박게임 및 게임머니를 제공하고, 이용자들이 도박게임을 할 때마다 딜러비 명목으로 판돈의 일정액을 공제하여 본사, 총판, 가맹점, 잭팟 적립금의 몫으로 나누기로 하고, 위 공소외 3 등 피씨방 업주들은 그곳을 찾은 불특정 다수의 이용자들로부터 돈을 받고 게임머니를 제공하고, 위 도박게임 사이트에 접속하여 속칭 ‘포커’, ‘고스톱’, ‘바둑이’ 등의 도박을 하게 하고, 위 게임으로 획득한 게임머니를 현금으로 환전해 주는 방법으로 도박을 개장하였다.

1. The defendant 4's oral statement and each statement in the original trial

1. The defendant 2's statements in each part of the court below's judgment and the court below's judgment

1. The statement in the original trial by Nonindicted 3 at the court below

1. The statement in the original trial by Nonindicted 4 at the court below

1. Statement concerning the defendant 4 concerning the suspect examination protocol by the prosecution;

1. Statement of Nonindicted 5

1. Each entry into police seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Details of bank transactions and each entry into a new bank account;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Each criminal records and investigation reports (the confirmation report on the date of release of a suspect) filed against Defendant 2;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendant 2 and 4: Articles 247 and 30 of the Criminal Code, each choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant 2: Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant 4: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Although the defendant alleged that he did not commit the crime of this case in collusion with the defendant 4, the court below stated that the defendant was a director of Sweden corporation at the court below's fourth trial of the court below that he did not have a relation to the above company (the defendant 4 reversed the previous statement by stating that he did not have a relation to the above company on the fourth trial of the court below, but in light of the circumstance that the defendant reversed his body and statement before the defendant 4, it does not believe the above statement in the facts charged before the defendant 4), the joint non-indicted 3 of the court below stated that the defendant was introduced from the non-indicted 6 at the court below's head office around June 29, 2006, and the witness non-indicted 4 of the court below was also aware that the defendant was a person who was a defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's 4 and the above defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's 4 and the above defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's 4.

1. The defendant's occupation of a gambling dog from the first patrol officer of April 2006 to the first patrol officer of May 2006

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

피고인들은 공소외 2, 7, 8, 성명불상의 기술이사 등과 공모하여, 영리의 목적으로, 2006. 4. 초순경부터 2006. 5. 초순경까지 사이에 안산시 고잔동 번지불상 소재 2층 사무실 및 서울 강남구 삼성동 (지번 생략) 사무실에서, 피고인 1은 영업 및 총괄을 맡고, 위 공소외 8은 영업 및 경리를 맡고, 성명불상자는 프로그램 가동 및 서버구축 등 기술을 맡고, 피고인 4는 위 업체에 자신이 대표이사로 있는 주식회사 머니머니썬 법인을 제공하고, 법인 명의의 은행 계좌를 개설하여 투자자 및 가맹점으로부터 투자금 및 가맹비 등을 받을 수 있도록 하고, 피고인 2, 3은 위 피고인 1, 4, 공소외 7과 함께 사업설명 및 가맹점 모집 등 영업을 맡고, 위 공소외 2는 가맹점 피씨방의 피씨 및 랜선 설치 등을 맡기로 하여 속칭 포커, 바둑이, 고스톱 등 도박을 할 수 있는 인터넷 도박게임 사이트를 개설하고, 안산시 중앙동 번지불상 소재 박 명불상자 운영의 머니머니썬 피씨방, 대전 소재 공소외 1(대법원 판결의 공소외인) 운영의 머니머니썬 피씨방 등 위 도박게임 사이트의 가맹점 피씨방을 모집하여, 위 가맹점으로부터 가입비, 피씨 및 랜선 설치 대금, 게임머니 대금 등의 명목으로 돈을 받아 위 가맹점 업소에 위 인터넷 도박게임 및 게임머니를 제공하고, 이용자들이 도박게임을 할 때마다 딜러비 명목으로 판돈의 일정액을 공제하여 본사, 총판, 가맹점, 잭팟 적립금의 몫으로 나누기로 하고, 위 피씨방 업주들은 그곳을 찾은 불특정 다수의 이용자들로부터 돈을 받고 게임머니를 제공하고, 위 도박게임 사이트에 접속하여 속칭 ‘포커’, ‘고스톱’, ‘바둑이’ 등의 도박을 하게 하고, 위 게임으로 획득한 게임머니를 현금으로 환전해 주는 방법으로 도박을 개장하였다.

B. Determination

The Defendants consistently stated that the program was tested prior to the opening of the above gambling game site, and the program was operated at 2 hours in operation, and the program was not operated. The records of this case also acknowledged that the Defendants recruited the gambling game site as a member store of the gambling game site where the Defendants attempted to open the central Dong-si and Daejeon. However, there is no evidence to support the Defendants actually opened the gambling game site, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendants opened the gambling game site to the users where the Defendants recruited, by accessing the gambling game site. Thus, insofar as the Defendants did not simply open the gambling game site, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants opened the gambling game site. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime, and thus, the Defendants should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Violation of the Act on Gambling Place from May 2006 to June 2006 and the Act on Sound Records, Video Products and Game Products against the Defendants

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendants in collusion with Nonindicted 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10:

(1) 영리의 목적으로, 2006. 5. 초순경부터 같은 해 6.경까지 사이에 서울 강남구 역삼동 소재 (이하 생략) 사무실에서, 위 공소외 9, 10은 라이라이(Lili)라는 인터넷 도박게임 업체를 설립하여 속칭 세븐오디, 바둑이, 맞고 등 도박을 할 수 있는 인터넷 도박게임 사이트인 모아모아(www.moamoa.com 또는 www.moamoa.co.kr) 프로그램을 구입하여 위 사이트 운영을 맡고, 피고인 1, 4는 기존에 개설하려 하였던 인터넷 도박게임 사이트가 서버 다운으로 운영이 어려워지자 남아있는 가맹점을 위 공소외 9, 10 운영의 사이트와 연결하고, 추가로 위 사이트의 가맹점 피씨방을 모집하는 총판을, 피고인 2, 3, 위 공소외 7은 위 피고인 1, 4의 밑에서 가맹점을 모집하는 딜러를, 위 공소외 2는 가맹점 피씨방에 피씨 및 랜선 설치 등을 맡기로 하고, 위 (이하 생략) 소재 상호불상 피씨방 등을 모집하여 위 가맹점으로부터 가입비, 피씨 및 랜선 설치 대금, 게임머니 대금 등의 명목으로 돈을 받아 위 가맹점 업소에 위 온라인 도박게임 및 게임머니를 제공하고, 이용자들이 도박게임을 할 때마다 딜러비 명목으로 판돈의 일정액을 공제하여 본사, 총판, 가맹점, 잭팟 적립금의 몫으로 나누기로 하고, 위 피씨방 업주들은 그곳을 찾은 불특정 다수의 이용자들로부터 돈을 받고 게임머니를 제공하고, 위 도박게임 사이트에 접속하여 속칭 ‘포커’, ‘고스톱’, ‘바둑이’ 등의 도박을 하게 하고, 위 게임으로 획득한‘ 게임머니를 현금으로 환전해 주는 방법으로 도박을 개장하였다.

(2) no person may provide for the use of a game product which has not been rated;

At the same time, at the same place, the online game without being classified by the above method was provided to unspecified users by searching for the above online game store.

B. Determination

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that Defendant 1, 2, and 4 attempted to sell gambling site totals at the above time and place with Nonindicted 2, etc.

In the case of this case, Defendant 4 stated in this court to the effect that he/she engaged in the business of soliciting scambling in the name and scambling room located in Gangnam-gu (hereinafter omitted) as a franchise store. However, Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act declares the principle of reinforcement of confession that, in addition to Defendant 4’s confession, reinforcement evidence is needed in addition to the confession of the defendant when the confession of the defendant was unfavorable to him/her. In order to find the defendant guilty, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the above scambling room was recruited as a franchise store and the above scambling online game product was provided by the above scambling operator to the user without classification of the defendant 4. In addition, this part of the facts charged does not have any other evidence to support this in addition to the confession of the defendant in the case of the defendant 4, and in the case of the remaining defendants, it is difficult to view that the above scambling room (hereinafter omitted) was first appeared in the defendant 4'scambambam.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, the judgment of not guilty is delivered with the decision of the court below.

3. The point of opening a gambling room from July 2006 to August 8 of the same year to Defendant 3

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

피고인은, 피고인 2, 4, 공소외 2, 7 등과 공모하여, 영리의 목적으로, 2006. 7.경부터 같은 해 8. 8.경까지 사이에 서울 강남구 삼성동 소재 공항터미널 인근 건물 3층에서, 피고인 4는 위 ‘주식회사 머니머니썬’이란 법인명으로 인터넷 도박게임 사이트의 영업을 맡는 총판을 설립하고, 피고인, 피고인 2, 1은 가맹점을 모집하는 딜러를, 공소외 2는 가맹점 피씨방에 피씨 및 랜선 설치 등을 맡기로 하고, 서울 동대문구 ○○동 (이하 생략) 소재 공소외 3 운영의 ‘ ○○PC방’ 등 가맹점을 모집하여 위 공소외 3으로부터 게임머니 대금으로 피고인 4의 신한은행 계좌로 100만 원을 송금받는 등 위 가맹점으로부터 가입비, 피씨 및 랜선 설치 대금, 게임머니 대금 등의 명목으로 돈을 받아 위 가맹점 업소에 위 온라인 도박게임 및 게임머니를 제공하고, 이용자들이 도박게임을 할 때마다 딜러비 명목으로 판돈의 일정액을 공제하여 본사, 총판, 가맹점, 잭팟 적립금의 몫으로 나누기로 하고, 위 공소외 3 등 피씨방 업주들은 그곳을 찾은 불특정 다수의 이용자들로부터 돈을 받고 게임머니를 제공하고, 위 도박게임 사이트에 접속하여 속칭 ‘포커’, ‘고스톱’, ‘바둑이’ 등의 도박을 하게 하고, 위 게임으로 획득한 게임머니를 현금으로 환전해 주는 방법으로 도박을 개장하였다.

B. Determination

Examining the entire facts charged against Defendant 3, including this part of the facts charged, Defendant 3 consistently stated at the investigative agency to the effect that, on May 2006, it is difficult for Defendant 2 to view the entire facts charged in this case including this part of the facts charged, at the request of Defendant 4, Defendant 3 admitted the facts charged in this case by asserting that there was no joint participation between Defendant 1 and Defendant 4, and evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case ① “Defendant 4 operated a gambling game site and it is difficult for the court below to view that there was no evidence of this case to acknowledge that there was no evidence of this case from the court below to the fact that Defendant 4 did not exist evidence of this case,” and, in light of the above, Defendant’s statement at the court below to the effect that “It is hard for the court below to admit that there was no evidence of this case to the effect that Defendant 2, who tried to operate the gambling game site and there was no evidence of this case from the court below to the fact that Defendant 4 did not open the above facts charged.”

Judges Han Chang-ho (Presiding Judge)