Recently, both the interest and the distrust of public at lottery has been increasing by growing of sales-volume and lottery-fund in lottery business. In the past, scholars have paid very little attention to the lottery policy but now it has become one of major policy to target the all people within the Government. In order to address the issue with quantitative growth and qualitative lack in lottery policy, this study has analyzed the policy agenda setting based on historical facts. Especially, I focused on the way to define the agenda as a first step of policy process by lead group and public interest in agenda setting process.

As a result of case study, there are four types of agenda setting process in Korea; mobilization of the housing lottery, inside-access of the sports lottery, outside-initiation of the online lottery, and the consolidation of the union lottery. When the type of agenda-setting process was changed in the lottery policy, the control system and the regulation of lottery market also changed simultaneously. In the agenda-setting process, the lead group has been affected by the political environment and the public interest has been influenced by the result of the previous policy in the lottery business. The most important step toward choosing the alternative lottery policy is the agenda setting stage. When the agenda has been built, this agenda hardly has been changed and reflected into process in lottery policy. The purpose of this study is to show that value of 'justice' and the procedural standards of 'consolidation' are necessary in order to set the goal of the lottery policy agenda.