2017 Highly 779 Gambling

1. Lighting-○ (560411 - 1), and non-permanent;

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Gangnam-gu Seoul basic domicile

2. Gamb○ (5607 - 1), and non-permanent.

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Jeonnam-gun District in original domicile

3. Kim○-○ (58105 - 1) and daily employed workers;

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

[Reference domicile]

E. B.I.D. (Courtrooms) and B. B. (Courtrooms)

August 17, 2017

The main defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On March 23, 2017: from 00 to 16:30 on the same day, the Defendants am bling up with 100 won of basic money in Yongsan-gu in Seoul, by using Chapter 20, which is the same kind of money, and divided up to 100 won of basic money in the form of a plaque possessed by a person with a high plaque in accordance with the pre-determined Rule (hereinafter referred to as "satisf") (hereinafter referred to as "satisf") 10 times in a way that the Defendants am bling up to 27,50 won in total.

2. Determination

A. The limit of illegality in the crime of gambling shall be specifically determined by referring to all circumstances, such as the time and place of gambling, the social status and degree of property of gambling persons, the nature of property, and other circumstances leading to gambling (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2096, Nov. 12, 1985).

(b) the following circumstances found based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court:

① In other words, the Defendants had been aware of the fact that ○○○○ and ○○○○ and ○○○○○ had been engaged in the instant gambling at the house of ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○ had been playing and drinking, and ② Defendant Cho○ and ○○○○ is a recipient of the daily living, and Defendant Kim○ was a daily worker. However, the amount in possession of the Defendants at the time of the detection is KRW 7,00,000, KRW 3,500, KRW 3,60, KRW 3,600, KRW 13,40, and KRW 20, KRW 9,000, KRW 560, KRW 2,000, KRW 13,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 9,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 5,0000, KRW 60,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 4,000.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the above facts charged constitute a case where illegality is removed pursuant to the proviso of Article 246(1) of the Criminal Act and does not constitute a crime, the court acquitted the Defendants pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Defendants cannot obtain their consent due to their failure to appear, so the court did not render a decision of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2)

Judges Kang Jeong-hee