(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.04 2019고단2755

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.04 2019고단2755

도박

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On April 5, 2019, from around 18:20 to 18:40 the same day, the Defendant, along with B, received 7 pages using 52 card in the D office operated by the Defendant in the Busan Geum-gu, Busan, by using 52 card. The Defendant, in turn, 54,00 won in the board money and 54,00 won in the form of 1,00 won in the highest order of the lowest number, was able to be laid off at least three in the same number or the same in the same manner.

2. Determination

A. 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, the social status and property level of the gambling person, the nature of property, and other circumstances leading to gambling.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9018 Decided September 9, 2010, etc.). B.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, ① the Defendant’s gambling act is deemed to be a temporary entertainment, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant and B have hereinafter “hululul for the purpose of gambling” in the D office operated by himself, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant and B were gathered for the purpose of gambling from the beginning; ② the money acquired by the winners through the instant game is merely KRW 1,00 per page, and the money obtained by the winners is merely KRW 54,00 per page, regardless of whether it is actual gambling, and the money seized at the site is merely KRW 54,00,00, regardless of whether it is actual gambling, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s gambling act is merely a temporary entertainment. The Defendant was sentenced to a fine for the crime of gambling twice.

The mere fact that there was a large number of gambling reports around that time does not interfere with the recognition.

C. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant was engaged in gambling beyond temporary entertainment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3. Conclusion, this case.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.02 2018노2019

-서울남부지방법원 2019.02.12 2017노2233

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2019.02.15 2018고정82

-서울북부지방법원 2020.01.10 2019고정1175

-청주지방법원 2020.05.22 2019노939