(a) Grounds for not punishing any gambling act which is only a temporary recreation;

(b) Standards for acts of entertainment which are merely those of temporary recreation;

A. The reason for punishing the crime of gambling under Article 246 of the Criminal Code is to protect sound economic ethics by punishing the acquisition of property, which is not based on legitimate labor, and the punishment is not in violation of the right to pursue happiness or the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. If the legislative intent of the same Article is to cultivate and protect sound work consciousness, entertainment resolving the mental and physical tension of ordinary people by making use of leisure time shall be permitted even from the viewpoint of national policy, and there are reasons for not punishing gambling acts which are merely temporary entertainment.

B. The extent of temporary recreation is nothing more than the extent that the economic value of the property is to stimulate the interest in the decision of the failure, even though the property was not immediately consumed by the scheduled method, and even if one party occupied the property based on the failure, and if the economic value of the property was to the extent that it does not infringe on the sound work consciousness by 100 won out of 300 won per head of each time (10 won per head of each time, 100 won out of 300 won, 20 million won, and 20 won are owned by the winners).

Article 246 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Do582 delivered on March 12, 1974, 79Do1715 delivered on November 13, 1979

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 82No347 delivered on July 16, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the charges that the defendant 100 won out of the total 300 won of the 300 won of the 100 won of the 200 won of the 200 won of the 200 won of the 200 won of the 300 won of the 200 won of the 200 won of the 200 won of the 20 hours of the 20th of the 20th of the 30th of the 30th of the 30th of the 20th of the 20th of the 30th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 30th of the 30th of the 20th of the 30th of the 20th of the

On the other hand, the reason for punishing gambling crimes in Article 246 of the Criminal Act is to protect the law of sound morals in economy by punishing acquisition of property which is not by legitimate labor. The punishment is not in violation of the right to pursue happiness or the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. If the legislative intent of the same Article is to cultivate and protect a sound sense of work, entertainment resolving the mental and physical tension of ordinary ordinary people by making use of their leisure time shall be allowed even from the viewpoint of national policy. Thus, it shall be interpreted that the proviso of Article 246 of the Criminal Act does not punish gambling acts which are merely the degree of temporary entertainment.

If so, as in this case, even if the property intended for the prompt private entertainment as in this case was not consumed in accordance with the scheduled method, and either party took part in the property according to the failure, if the acquisition and loss of the property was to stimulate the interest in the decision on the failure, and if the economic value of the property was so long as it does not infringe on the sound work consciousness, the court below's disposition is just, and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained the judgment. There is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the degree of temporary entertainment such as the theory of lawsuit, and even if the current bad gambling landscape is expanded, it cannot be adopted because it is not the reason for punishing the entertainment act to be protected or permissible from the mental or social policy point of view of the above Constitution.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)