A man in his 60s, who was charged with setting a betting amount with neighboring residents and playing Hwatu for '100 won per point,' was acquitted in both the first trial and the appeal.
On the 16th, the Second Criminal Division of the Jeonju District Court (Director General Kim Do-hyeong) announced it upheld the lower court's ruling, dismissing the prosecutor's appeal and maintaining the not guilty verdict for Mr. A (69), who was indicted on gambling charges. On April 13, 2023, Mr. A was indicted for playing Go-Stop with three neighbors at an apartment in Gunsan City while placing bets.
The core of the case was whether the defendant's actions could indeed be judged as 'gambling,' considering the scale of the betting, the duration of the gambling, and any economic gains. The rules applied to the Go-Stop game at that time were the same as those widely known to the public, where the first person to score three points wins, and if the winner scores additional points, the burden of payout for the loser increases.
However, the total betting amount was only 108,400 won, and since it was calculated at 100 won per point, the amount of profit that the winner could acquire was not significant, even if they had a good hand. Furthermore, Mr. A and others agreed that 'the winner of that round should contribute part of the winnings towards beer and chicken costs,' which prevented the winner from taking all the profits.
The first trial court considered this situation and viewed the Go-Stop game as 'occasional recreation' rather than gambling. However, the prosecutor appealed, arguing that the defendant had a history of being punished for gambling offenses and that the Go-Stop game had been interrupted due to police enforcement.
However, the appellate court judged that 'even considering each person's economic circumstances, the total amount of cash possessed by the defendant and others present at the time of detection was not excessively high,' and added that 'even if the defendant had repeatedly gambled, it seems unlikely that money exceeding the amount of cash they possessed at that time was exchanged.'
It also added, 'In light of these points, the lower court's judgment is justified, and it cannot be said that there was a legal violation or factual misunderstanding, as the prosecutor argued.'