beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.03.21 2013노349

도박방조등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) at the time, at the time, as the head of a public bath house, provided that the Defendant provided a kynasium with a view to raising the meal cost at a time around 11:00 hours from the night that there was no other customer after completing meals; (b) provided a card and a distribution to the extent of temporary recreation; and (c) provided that the Defendant’s act does not go against the social rules, and thus, is justified.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The “act that does not violate social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act as to whether the illegality of gambling aiding and abetting is dismissed refers to the act that is acceptable in light of the overall legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate social norms, and thus, should be determined individually by rationally and reasonably considering the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) legitimacy of the means or method; (c) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (d) balance between the legal interests of the third protected interests and infringed interests; and (v) supplement of the absence of any other means or method other than the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077 Decided December 26, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do699 Decided October 23, 2008, etc.). In light of the following, the circumstances where customers want to pay the meal cost by means of money prepared through gambling cannot be said to be a motive to give justification to the act of a restaurant operator who provided the gambling place and the tool, and the above act cannot be deemed reasonable by means or method of receiving the meal cost, as well as the balance and urgency of legal interests.