Defendants are not guilty.

1. On March 9, 2018, from around 16:00 to 17:00 of the same day, the Defendants, along with D and E, provided that, at the office of “G Authorized Broker” located in F in the official city from around March 16, 2018 to around 17:00, the Defendants provided a 20-round 10 straw “high saw” in a manner that a person who first pays 3 points by using 48 copies of chemical speculation and pays 100 won to the longer person whenever adding 300 won and one point thereafter.

2. The illegality limit, such as whether temporary entertainment was limited to the degree of gambling, should be determined specifically by referring to all the circumstances, such as gambling hours and places, gambling workers’ social status and property level, property nature, and other circumstances leading to gambling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2096, Nov. 12, 1985; 2010Do9018, Sept. 9, 2010). Comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted by the court and investigated by the prosecutor, the Defendants’ act is limited to the degree of temporary entertainment. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone was that the Defendants gambling beyond temporary entertainment.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

① Defendants, D, and E were friendly, or they were friendly ones, and they were saw saws for about one hour at a low time. The place where the Defendants saw saws was saws from time to time by other people was not a secret place as an authorized broker office where other people are allowed to frequent access.

② The Defendants 100 saw the top saws for each of the 100 saws, and the amount of money seized at the site is less than 60,000 won. ③ Defendant A had two saws of gambling but has not been more than 20 years.

At the site;

D In the case of cases similar to that of 2015, the history of the suspension of indictment has been subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment.

However, solely on such circumstances alone, the Defendants engaged in gambling by excluding the above other circumstances.

It can be readily determined.