logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2019.02.15 2018고정82
도박
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the public official, the public official, the member of the company, the member of the company, and the member of the company, the member of the company, and the member of the company, and the member of the company, who works for day

The Defendant, along with B, C, from around 18:00 on September 30, 2018 to around 18:40 on the same day, used 52 trum cards in the front side repair house located in E, and used 52 copies of each of the following numbers divided by 7 each of the cards by the following numbers, according to the rules, such as dumping all the cards with the same number and serial numbers on the floor, or dumping all the cards with the same card or pattern, in which numbers are continuous, into the floor, is less than the sum of the numbers of the cards in possession at the time when the game ends, and the strawer took a gambling in the order of approximately 10 times by giving approximately 167,500 won to the winners.

2. The illegality of the crime of gambling, such as whether it is merely a temporary entertainment, should be determined specifically by referring to all the circumstances, such as the time and place of gambling, 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). The Defendant was engaged in games to collect food expenses, and the game B, C, and D are between the Defendant’s friendship and friendship.

In addition, the money which a winner obtains through a game is only 3,00 won on one sheet.

The total amount of money confiscated at the site without relation to whether it is actual gold or not shall not be KRW 170,000.

This is extremely small amount considering the present price.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act is merely a temporary entertainment, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant was engaged in gambling beyond a temporary entertainment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the act.

3. Conclusion.

arrow