The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts of the crime No. 1 (a) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant provided only a place of gambling, and (i) the defendant cannot be deemed a resident of opening a place of gambling, and (ii) the defendant did not have a profit-making purpose with respect to the establishment of a place of gambling.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and a fine of six million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (1) The crime of opening gambling under 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.

“Profit-making purpose” means the intent to obtain an illegal pecuniary benefit in return for the opening of gambling, and the purpose of profit-making is recognized in cases of profits to be indirectly obtained through gambling opening, not the direct consideration of the opening of gambling opening, but the purpose of profit-making is recognized in cases of profits to be obtained through gambling opening, and it does not require actual profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3970, Oct. 23, 2008). Meanwhile, joint principal offenders under Article 30 of the Criminal Act are established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements of criminal execution through functional control of acts based on the intent of joint processing and the common intent. Even if some of the competitors fail to directly share part of the constituent acts, if it is recognized that there exists a functional control over the act through essential contribution to the crime, not just the competitor, but also the functional control over the act through the functional control of acts based on the common intent, it shall not be exempted from the liability of joint principal offenders.

Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6994 Decided September 24, 2009