A. Since the Defendant is a victim of gambling, the crime of gambling is not established against the Defendant.

B. Legal principles (with regard to the crime of special confinement), the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, since the Defendant, as a victim of fraud, prevented the perpetrator from doing so until the police reaches the age of the perpetrator.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where one of the gambling parties controls the number of the winnings by means of fraud, the crime of gambling is not established because of lack of friendlyness in gambling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9330, Jan. 13, 2011). However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, recognized by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, along with the Defendant, engaged in gambling; (b) the place and time of gambling; (c) the place of gambling; (d) hours; (d) the size of gambling; (e) the degree of gambling; and (e) the degree of attitude after the gambling was completed; and (e) the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is not recognized to have lacking the friendlyness of the instant gambling; and (e) the Defendant’s assertion

B. In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victims recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the background and consequence of the crime in this part, and the possibility of existence of other means of avoidance, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s confinement constitutes a

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

C. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial and trial.