The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal. A.

As to the grounds of appeal on the crime of opening gambling, the crime of opening gambling in Article 247 of the Criminal Act is established by opening a gambling place under the control of a person who is himself/herself for the purpose of making a profit. The crime of gambling is an independent crime separate from the crime of gambling, and the crime of gambling is an independent crime. The term "gambling" means that the participating party gets property and contests the acquisition or loss of property by an incidental acceptance book, and the term "for profit-making purpose" refers to the intention of seeking an gain or loss of property in return for opening gambling.

(2) On April 12, 2002, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s opening of each of the private sites of this case constitutes gambling activities with the primary purpose of “the transaction by using each of the private sites opened by the Defendant is to make a decision of acquisition and loss of property by drinking materials and by chance.”

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to gambling opening.

B. As to the grounds of appeal as to acquittal, where multiple acts falling under the name of the same crime continue to be conducted for a certain period with a single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized in several crimes or the method of the crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do278, May 13, 2005; 2006Do3172, Sept. 8, 2006). The lower court based on its adopted evidence.