Go-Stop for 100 Won per Point with Set Stakes... Both First and Appellate Courts Rule "Not Gambling"

A Total Pot of 100,000 Won...
First Place Winner Agreed to Buy Beer and Fried Chicken

A man in his 60s who played Go-Stop with his neighbors for 100 won per point was acquitted again on appeal.

Asia Economy DB

On June 16, the Jeonju District Court's 2nd Criminal Division, presided over by Chief Judge Kim Dohyung, announced that it had dismissed the prosecutor's appeal and upheld the original verdict of not guilty in the appeal trial of Mr. A (69), who had been indicted on gambling charges.

Mr. A was indicted for playing Go-Stop for stakes with three neighbors in an apartment in Gunsan on April 13, 2023.

The main issue in this case was whether Mr. A's actions could be considered "gambling" in light of the size of the stakes, the duration of the game, and any economic gain. The Go-Stop rules applied at the time were the same as the common method: the first player to score three points would win, and if the winner scored additional points, the loser's payment burden would increase accordingly.

However, the total amount of money at stake was only 108,400 won, and since each point was worth 100 won, even if the winner with a good hand scored high, the profit would not be significant. Furthermore, Mr. A and the others had agreed that the first-place winner in each round would have to contribute part of their winnings to pay for beer and fried chicken, thereby thoroughly preventing the winner from taking all the money during the 15-minute game.

The court of first instance considered these circumstances and ruled that the Go-Stop game was "temporary entertainment" rather than gambling, but the prosecutor appealed the decision. As grounds for the appeal, the prosecutor cited Mr. A's previous conviction for gambling and the fact that the Go-Stop game was stopped due to a police crackdown.

However, the appellate court stated, "Even considering the individual financial situations of those present at the scene, the total amount of cash they possessed at the time of detection cannot be considered excessive," and added, "Even if Mr. A had engaged in repeated gambling, it does not appear that any money exceeding the amount of cash on hand was exchanged between the parties."

The court concluded, "In light of these points, the original verdict is justified, and there is no factual error or misapplication of the law as claimed by the prosecutor," thus explaining the grounds for the acquittal.