A. The Defendant is merely a person who is a planned person of gambling, and cannot be found to have committed gambling on the ground that he/she did not have any intention of gambling.

The Defendant borrowed a house from the Defendant, forced the Defendant to lend it continuously, and there was no intention to open a gambling place.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged and erred by mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실 오인 주장에 대한 판단 1) 도 박 관련 사실 오인 주장에 대한 판단 도박이란 2인 이상이 상호 간에 재물을 도( 賭) 하여 우연한 승패에 의하여 그 재물의 득실을 결정하는 것이므로, 이른바 사기도 박과 같이 도박 당사자의 일방이 사기의 수단으로써 승패의 수를 지배하는 경우에는 도박에서의 우연성이 결여되어 사기죄만 성립하고 도박죄는 성립하지 아니한다( 대법원 2011. 1. 13. 선고 2010도 9330 판결 참조). 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 피고인이 참여한 세 븐 오디 포커 등 도박에서 운영 자가 사기의 수단으로써 승패의 수를 지배하였다고

There is no material to see, and in light of the number of gamblings, gambling period, and the amount of gambling, etc. recognized by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant stuffed as recorded in the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts relating to the establishment of gambling places, the Defendant consented to the proposal of B, which allows the Defendant to use the housing owned by the Defendant as gambling places, and the Defendant directly installed and installed with one tree table, chair, and sarro, etc. on the housing above, and required to replace B with a larger original deposit.