도박
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant is innocent;
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal acknowledged the fact that the Defendant had “high saw” as stated in the facts charged in this case, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty even though it was merely a temporary entertainment and did not constitute a crime of gambling. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. On May 4, 2016, the Defendant, along with C, D, and E, ranging from around 14:00 to 16:00, used 40 copies of the instant facts charged at “GC” located in “GC” located in Changwon Mucompo-gu F, Changwon-si, and used 40 copies of the instant facts charged.
B. The lower court determined that the instant gambling act cannot be deemed as having been related to the degree of temporary recreation, in light of the following: (a) the instant gambling place (a multi-section located on the underground floor); (b) the developments leading up to the detection of the instant gambling act (the detection by a police officer dispatched after receiving a report 112); and (c) the Defendant’s statement that, even based on the Defendant’s statement, the instant gambling act was deemed to have been “stop” in a different manner from those who came to know while entering and leaving the said tea; and (b) it appears that the instant gambling act was not a kind
C. 1) The illegality of the crime of gambling, such as whether it is merely a temporary entertainment, should be determined specifically by referring to all the circumstances, including the time and place of gambling, the social status and property level of gambling, the nature of property, and other circumstances that led to gambling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2096, Nov. 12, 1985; 2010Do9018, Sept. 9, 2010). In full view of the facts and circumstances duly adopted by the court below and recognized by the evidence, the facts charged in this case are merely a temporary entertainment, and thus, are not illegal. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “temporary entertainment” in the crime of gambling, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to “the extent of temporary entertainment”, and the above assertion by the defendant is with merit.