beta
Main Issues
Criteria for determining the degree of temporary entertainment of gambling;
Summary of Judgment
In light of the relationship between the Defendants, occupation, and scale, motive, etc., the Defendants’ gambling act is nothing more than the degree of temporary recreation, in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendants were able to engage in their occupation and business, and the Defendants were able to play in the Han Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si and 700 won; and (b) the amount of money seized is 1,100 won or more; and (c) the Defendants’ gambling
[Reference Provisions]
Article 246 of the Criminal Act
Escopics
Defendant 1 and two others
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No2311 delivered on July 20, 1983
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
In the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant 1 was a taxi driver for business use, the defendant 2 was a scam, and the defendant 3 was a person living in Han Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dongdong while engaging in a livelihood for dry management, etc., and the defendant 400 or 700 won was raised to the scamba, and the scam was 400 won and 100 won was collected from the defendant among the defendants, and the scam was 400 won and 100 won was collected from the scamba, and the scambag was not found in light of the relation between the defendants and the defendant 1, 200 won and the scambag, 4,800 won, and the scambag, which were seized.
In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on gambling by excessively broad interpreting the degree of temporary entertainment, and therefore, the argument is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)