Private Toto operator trial penalty of KRW 1 million

(1)② daily newspaper
(2)The law was reduced to 3 billion won → 1 million won in fines for illegal gambling sites
(3)Input 20230705 AM 807 Article text
(4)Reporter Ryu Hae-mi
(5)a family of one street

(1)The fines for illegal gambling site operators handed over to trial have been drastically reduced from 3 billion won to 1 million wonThe Supreme Court reaffirmed the precedent that even if it is suspected of criminal proceeds, it cannot be collected unless its size and source are specified
(2)According to legal circles on the 5th, Supreme Court Justice Lee Heung-gu sentenced A to one year and 10 months in prison and 1 million won in fines on the 15th of last month for violating the National Sports Promotion Act
(3)From February 2013 to December 2015, A was indicted on charges of setting up offices in Cambodia and the Philippines and operating illegal sports gambling sites with two or more accomplices
(4)The prosecution believed that gambling worth 3.096 billion won took place on the site opened by A, and added a charge that A received 1.751 billion won from members of the site at the appeal
(5)The first trial found A guilty of all the charges and sentenced him to prison, ordering him to collect KRW 3.096 billion, the amount of gambling specified in the indictment
(6)However, the appellate court sentenced the defendant to drastically reduce the amount of additional collection, saying that the portion of the profits he/she obtained from the crime in this case could be specified was 1 million won The appellate court cited a Supreme Court precedent that confiscation, collection, or recognition of additional charges does not require strict proof, but it is natural that they should be recognized by evidence and cannot be collected if the target criminal proceeds cannot be specified

(1)Regarding the defendant’s criminal proceeds, he said, “There is no data that properly calculated the charging exchange on the gambling site,” adding, “Even if the indictment follows, we cannot determine whether the total amount of 4.84 billion won is criminal proceeds attributed to the defendant.”
(2)In addition, the court saw that it was unclear how many accomplices the accomplices acquired and distribution details were, so it was impossible to specify the profits A earned
(3)Both the prosecution and A appealed against the ruling, but the Supreme Court rejected both sides’ appeals, saying they were not at fault in the original judgment
(4)Reporter Ryu Ha-mi, Sophiahm imaeilcom