The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles), the amount acquired by the winner of the instant gambling from the instant gambling is 5,000 won, and the total amount of seized gambling is 161,00 won, etc., the Defendants’ gambling act cannot be deemed as merely a case of temporary entertainment. Thus, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the facts charged of the instant gambling by recognizing the nature of temporary entertainment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the degree of temporary entertainment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On May 15, 201, at around 20:30 on May 15, 201, the Defendants, along with I, J, and K, carried out the so-called “hululule” gambling in a way that: (a) at the Seo-gu Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, by obtaining seven copies of the card; (b) a person who first received seven copies of the card; and (c) a person who issues a seven card linked to the same number of card on the floor; and (d) a person who lowers all the seven cards first received; and (e) a person who transfers money of KRW 500 or KRW 2,00 on the Chinese plate five times in order from a person who has written the number to a person.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendants engaged in gambling at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, but the proviso of Article 246(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendants shall not be punished if gambling is merely a temporary entertainment. Whether the aforementioned proviso is merely a temporary entertainment shall be determined by taking into account various objective circumstances, such as the time and place of gambling, the value of the property in gambling, the social status of the persons who participated in gambling, the degree of property in gambling, and the use of gains from gambling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu692, Apr. 9, 1985), and ① Defendant A operates the EM center, and Defendant B, I, and K, who participated in the instant gambling, received daily allowances from Defendant A.