Is playing go-stop at 100 won per point gambling, or just simple entertainment?
As the Lunar New Year holiday approaches, the temptation of "a round of go-stop" returns. The idea is that a "home game" with family or neighbors should be fine. Some say it is gambling since money changes hands, while others argue that small-stakes play for camaraderie is not punishable. Online, "that's just socializing" and "if money changes hands, it's gambling" collide. Where do the courts stand?
According to legal sources on the 16th, the Jeonju District Court Criminal Division 2 (Presiding Judge Kim Do-hyeong, senior judge) dismissed the prosecutor's appeal in June last year in the appellate trial of A, 69, who was indicted on gambling charges, and upheld the first-instance acquittal.
A was caught playing go-stop with three neighboring residents at an apartment in Gunsan on Apr. 13, 2023. They played first to three points, wagering 100 won per point. The total pot was 108,400 won.
The court viewed this as within the scope of "temporary recreation." At the time of the bust, the pot was around 100,000 to 110,000 won, and A's actual loss was only 19,000 won. The game also lasted only about 15 minutes from 8 p.m. The first-instance court also took into account that part of the pot was to be put toward beer and fried chicken. It concluded it was a small wager with a predetermined use among acquaintances.
By contrast, there are cases where the same "100 won per point" led to convictions. Last year, the Daegu District Court Criminal Single-Judge Division 8 (Presiding Judge Kim Mi-gyeong) fined B and C 500,000 won each after a total of 162,000 won changed hands while they played go-stop at 100 won per point. The two did not know each other. The court found the activity leaned more toward gambling than socializing.
Article 246 of the Criminal Act penalizes gambling but makes an exception for cases "no more than temporary recreation." In a 1985 precedent, the Supreme Court said it judges by comprehensively considering factors such as time and place, the participants' social status and wealth, the size of the stakes, and how the gambling came about.
Subsequent case law also looks at familiarity among participants, how the pot will be used, and whether it was repeated, considering habituality. While investigators often cite "a 200,000 won pot" or prior records as reference points, courts place more weight on the context than on the amount itself.
Past rulings show a similar pattern. In 2006, D, who played go-stop at 100 won per point, was convicted but received a suspended sentence of a 300,000 won fine. The court considered that D was a basic livelihood recipient receiving 200,000 won per month in government subsidies at the time.
In 2016, E, who wagered 200 won per point and played go-stop from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. the next day, was fined 500,000 won. The court took issue more with the long, late-night session than with the size of the pot.
Not every hwatu table is a gambling den. As with go-stop, if wins and losses turn on chance and money changes hands, gambling charges may arise. However, if the outcome is effectively rigged and money is taken while concealing that, fraud rather than gambling may apply. Even at the same hwatu table, the charge differs depending on whether it is an "agreed wager" or "deception-based swindling."
Shin Jae-hwan, a former senior judge and an attorney at YulChon, said, "If it is for socializing, it is necessary to agree in advance on the range of gains and losses and how the pot will be used, and to take care that it does not become habitual."
In the end, it is hard to categorically say "100-won go-stop is not gambling," or to flatly say "if money changes hands, it is always gambling." Courts assess gambling propensity and social harm by comprehensively considering relationships, time of day, the real size of the stakes, repetition, and how the money will be used. Even for "just one round" over the Lunar New Year holiday, with whom, where, and how it was played can determine guilt or innocence.