A. The crime of opening gambling is not established against the Defendant on the ground that, within the office located in the facts charged by the Defendant by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (hereinafter “instant office”), a single stop “high stop” of the elderly is merely a temporary entertainment.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of opening gambling or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of opening gambling, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of gambling under Article 247 of the Criminal Act, which is established by the opening of a gambling place under the control of the gambling place as a resident for the purpose of profit-making, is a separate independent crime from the crime of gambling.

The term "gambling" means that the participating party contests the acquisition and loss of the property by betting the property, and the term "for-profit purposes" means the intent to gain economic benefits in return for the opening of gambling, and the purpose of profit-making is recognized even in the case of profits indirectly obtained through the opening of gambling, not the direct consideration of the opening of gambling, but the purpose of profit-making is recognized and the actual benefit is not required (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3970, Oct. 23, 2008). On the other hand, as to whether the degree of temporary entertainment was limited as the limit of illegality in the crime of gambling, the issue of whether the degree of temporary entertainment was limited should be determined by referring to the time and place of gambling, the social status and degree of property of the gambling person, the nature of the property, and other circumstances leading to gambling (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3970, Oct. 26, 195).