Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, January 16 (Reporter Wu Wenxu) The reporter learned from the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing on the 16th that the court recently concluded a criminal case of organizing multiple people to gamble in the group using the WeChat group as a platform. The defendants Zhang and Dong were sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison, 2 years in prison and a fine respectively for the crime of opening a casino.
In May 2018, the defendant Zhang organized more than 20 people to gamble in the WeChat group established by him in Haidian District, Beijing, taking the lottery website lottery results as the betting object, and set "dragon", "tiger" and "harmony" by himself. and other gambling rules.
Defendant Dong Mou also directly organized personnel to participate in gambling.
During the trial, the public prosecution agency produced evidence such as the defendant's confession, witness testimony, on-site inspection and inspection records, screenshots of WeChat transaction records and chat records, screenshots of information sent by WeChat groups, and screenshots of gambling rules information published in WeChat groups. The behavior of Zhang and Dong constituted the crime of opening a casino.
After the trial, the court held that the defendants, Zhang and Dong, set up a WeChat group to provide a place to gather people to gamble for profit, and set their own gambling rules according to the lottery results of the lottery website. , the accumulated gambling capital is more than 400,000 yuan, the circumstances are serious, and his behavior has constituted the crime of opening a casino and should be punished.
In view of the fact that the defendant Zhang had surrendered himself, and the defendant Dong was an accomplice, he could truthfully confess his crimes after he arrived at the case and during the trial, and he had a good attitude of confession. Therefore, the two defendants were given a reduced punishment according to law.
In the end, the court made the aforementioned judgment.
After the sentence was pronounced, the two defendants appealed.
The court of second instance made a final ruling, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.