Habituality of gambling is denied

If gamblings are all engaged in the same occupation in the same Gun and do not go through gambling, it is difficult to view that the act of gambling in which gamblings take place 10,000 won at a 100-day scale and 120 times more than a 120-time, and even if the amount of temporary entertainment exceeds the degree of temporary entertainment, it is difficult to see that it is the development of gambling habits with only the amount provided for gambling recovery and a single gambling.

Article 246(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Gwangju District Court Decision 88No274 delivered on December 9, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the first instance recognized that the defendants habitually 18:00 on January 11, 198, from around 198 to 23:15 on the same day, the defendants 10,00 won 10,000 and 120 times, using 48 copies from the inside room of the non-indicted 1’s management (mutual omission) in the non-indicted 1’s office and carried out gambling, which is called 30 times more than 10,00, and the court below rejected the judgment, based on the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, as to the grounds for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court's recognition of habitual nature is the amount of money that the defendants recovered from the crime of this case and offered for gambling once. However, according to the records, the defendants do not have the criminal records of gambling as those engaged in the reverse field processing business in the same Dondondon, and even though the gambling act of this case exceeds the extent of temporary entertainment, even though the gambling act of this case exceeds the amount of temporary entertainment, it is limited to the amount of money that the court below acknowledged and offered for gambling and the single gambling, and it is difficult to see that the defendants' gambling act of this case is the origin of the wall of gambling.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habitual nature of gambling or by admitting habitual nature of gambling in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)