1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant is innocent;

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one million won in penalty, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. We examine ex officio whether gambling out of the facts charged in the instant case constitutes an unlawful case as to whether gambling is limited to the degree of temporary recreation.

1) The illegality limit, such as whether temporary entertainment was limited to the degree of gambling in the crime of gambling, should be determined specifically by referring to all the circumstances, including the time and place of gambling, the social status and property level of gambling, the nature of property, and other circumstances leading to gambling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2096, Nov. 12, 1985; 2010Do9018, Sept. 9, 2010). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the illegality limit of gambling among the facts charged in this case is nothing more than the degree of temporary entertainment, and thus, it is unlawful by misapprehending the legal principles.

① The Defendant and C, D, E, F, and G were the beginning of July 13, 2015, which was the date of the instant police investigation, in the process of the police investigation, and were living in the same Dong Dongdong on July 13, 2015. As such, the Defendant and C, D, E, F, and G had been engaged in drinking and drinking in the Chinese restaurant operated by the Defendant, starting “hulule” for the purpose of drinking alcohol in the day.

Each statement shall be made.

② The time when the Defendant, C, D, E, F, and G “hullar” was “hullar” is limited to about 30 minutes (the Defendant and C, D, E, E, F, and G’s respective interrogation records, and each interrogation records of the food sanitation law violations), or one hour (the respective written statements and seizure records of the Defendant, E, F, and D). ③ The place where the Defendant “hullar” was “hullar” together with C, D, E, F, and G appears to be a “I restaurant” operated by the Defendant, and there is no confidential place for others to have access from time to time.

(4) The defendant (around 3 million won in Chinese house management, monthly income) and C (agricultural).