The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, a punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the instant house used as a gambling place in misunderstanding the legal principles is not the house of the Defendant, but the house of F, and the friendly community members, including F, gather in the time-to-day day, and play play temporarily at a mother level, and does not engage in gambling subject to punishment under the Criminal Act. Although the Defendant received money from the winners, there was no profit-making purpose since it was received as expenses for providing meals, etc.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of gambling as referred to in Article 247 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is an independent crime that is separate from the crime of gambling in which gambling is established by opening a gambling place under the control and self-replace as a resident for the purpose of profit-making.

The term "gambling" means that the participating party contests the acquisition and loss of the property by betting the property, and the term "for-profit purposes" means the intent to gain economic benefits in return for the opening of gambling, and the purpose of profit-making is recognized in the case of profits indirectly obtained through the opening of gambling, not the direct consideration of the opening of gambling, but the purpose of profit-making is recognized in the case of profits indirectly obtained through the opening of gambling, and it does not require that the profit was actually gained (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3970, Oct. 23, 2008, etc.). On the other hand, whether the degree of temporary entertainment was limited as the limit of illegality in the crime of gambling should be determined by referring to all the circumstances such as the time and place of gambling, social status and property of the gambling person, the nature of the property, and other circumstances leading to gambling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1658, Oct. 26, 1985).

C, D, E, and F are immediately after control.