Operating a Texas Hold'em gambling house in a bar

Substantive review of detention warrant

Investigative agencies generally conduct investigations without detention, but if the suspect's suspicion is substantial, the suspect has no fixed residence, there is concern of evidence destruction, or there is concern of flight, they may request a detention warrant from the court.

The court that receives the detention warrant request summons the suspect for questioning and decides whether to issue the warrant by comprehensively considering whether the grounds for detention listed above exist, as well as the gravity of the crime, the risk of recidivism, and the risk of harm to the victim and important witnesses.

If the warrant is issued, the suspect is immediately detained, and the police may conduct the investigation while detained for up to 10 days, and the prosecution for up to 20 days.

Recently, attorney Joo Youngjae represented a suspect for whom a detention warrant was requested on charges of operating a gambling establishment and brought about the dismissal of the warrant request. We will introduce this case.

Facts

The police requested a detention warrant, claiming that from around January 2021 to around May of the same year, the suspect (client) operated a bar, provided tables, cards, chips, etc. needed for poker games, allowed an unspecified number of customers to gamble in a game called 'Texas Hold'em,' earned approximately 94,000,000 Korean won in exchange fees, etc., and because the client had significant debt and was preparing for individual rehabilitation, there was concern of flight at any time, and there was concern of collusion with accomplices to destroy evidence.

Attorney Joo Youngjae's assistance

Attorney Joo Youngjae argued that although the client admitted most of the charges, the client lived with his wife, a middle school daughter, and an elementary school son, so there was little concern of flight, and because he was arguing with accomplices over profit distribution, there was little concern of colluding to destroy evidence.

In addition, attorney Joo Youngjae argued that the profits the suspect actually earned from the crime were very small, the suspect had actively cooperated with the investigation since being caught, and because the investigative agency had already secured sufficient materials to prove the charges, such as business ledgers and laptops, the need for detention was low.

Court's decision

The court accepted the arguments of attorney Joo Youngjae, dismissed the police's warrant request, and the client was immediately released and investigated without detention.