The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal had a record of being punished for gambling as a crime, and the “F” where the proprietor of the instant gambling was punished as a crime of aiding and abetting gambling, and there was a friendly relationship between the participants in the instant gambling.

In full view of the fact that the instant gambling cannot be seen as falling under the extent of temporary entertainment, the instant gambling cannot be deemed as falling under the extent of temporary entertainment.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on gambling and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, acknowledged the fact that: (a) both the Defendant and B, C, and D had been engaged in a certain occupation and had been engaged in F dynasium or having been paid fynasium on the day of the instant case, a Saturday; (b) had been engaged in drinking or fynasium in remote money; (c) had been engaged in drinking or fynasium in a manner of paying approximately KRW 100 won per 20 minutes over several occasions; and (d) the seized dynasium in total amount of KRW 80,50,50 (Defendantdo 29,600, Bdo 42,200, Cdo 42,500, Cdo 6,500, D Do ddo 2,200, and C Do cynasium 2,200). The lower court determined that Article 246 of the Criminal Act punishing the crime of gambling in the light of the general public’s economic and economic ethics.

B. The issue of whether “temporary entertainment level” in the crime of gambling in this court’s judgment should be specifically determined by taking into account all circumstances, such as the time and place of gambling, the social status and property level of gambling, the amount of property, and other circumstances leading to gambling (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do28, Nov. 12, 1985).