Defendants are not guilty.

1. On January 16, 2013, from around 15:00 to 16:30 of the same day, the Defendants, along with the instant facts charged, carried out an gambling using the name “hulule” in a way that: (a) the Defendant, from around 15:00 to around 16:30 of the same day, took part of each of 7 cards using 52 cards; and (b) took part of the cards using 52 cards; (c) in order following the following: (a) the card dealing with a combination of the pattern and number, additionally received additional 1 card; and (d) the Defendant first set up the card on the floor; and (b) the Defendant, who was the winner, was the passenger, thereby making up the card from 1,000 to 2,00 won according to the number of

2. Although the summary of the Defendants’ and the defense counsel’s assertion had stuffed as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, it is merely a temporary entertainment, it does not constitute illegality.

3. Article 246(1) of the Criminal Act provides, “The person who spawns with any property shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five million won or a minor fine: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case where the level of temporary recreation is simple.” Whether the case constitutes “the case where the level of temporary recreation is mere one” should be determined specifically by taking into consideration each circumstance, such as the place of gambling, gambling, social status of the spawn, degree of property, and nature of the stolen property.

In accordance with the records of this case, the following circumstances are as follows: ① at the time the Defendants started the hullar, Defendant A 11,000 won, Defendant B 28,000 won, Defendant C 39,000 won, Defendant D 10,000 won, and Defendant D 10,000 won, and Defendant A 20,000 won, Defendant A’s solitary money, Defendant B’s 14,000 won, Defendant C’s lost money, and Defendant C’s lost money were 38,000 won, and Defendant D’s lost money was related to 10,000 won or 10,000 won, ② the Defendants were related to friendly or regional distribution, and Defendant D’s 10,000 won and 10,000 won, or 3.0,000 others were working and 3.0.