The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for four months, and Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles was the only attempt to open gambling in relation to the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and there was no leading gambling opening.

Therefore, it is only a crime of aiding and abetting who is not a principal offender of gambling opening.

(2) The lower court’s sentence on Defendant A, B, and D’s assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant A, B: 2 years of suspended sentence in 6 months of imprisonment, and Defendant D: 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) alleged the misunderstanding of facts (the part not guilty against Defendant A, B, and D) and Defendant A, B, and D had opened gambling with the new wall from January 24, 2014 to February 1, 2014, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of each of the charges of gambling opening from January 25, 2014 to February 1, 2014, since the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charges of gambling opening with the aforementioned charges and the charges of gambling opening from January 25, 2014 to February 1, 2014.

(2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A, B, and D: the same applies to the above, Defendant C: fine of KRW 3 million) on the ground that the lower court’s argument on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of opening gambling under Article 247 of the Criminal Code, which is established by Defendant B as a principal of the opening of gambling (related to the crime of paragraph (1) of the same Article in the judgment of the court below), is an independent crime separate from the crime of gambling in which the crime of opening gambling is established by being a principal of the gambling for the purpose of profit-making. "for profit-making" refers to an intention to obtain an illegal pecuniary benefit in return for opening of gambling.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5802 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, Defendant B served as a part of the following: (a) Defendant B, who walked in the gambling place in the judgment, was removed from the opening of the so-called “hon” and sent the so-called “hon” to D who opened the gambling place; (b) prepared the gambling place in the judgment and recruited the gambling person; and (c) generated through the gambling place.