beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.09 2017고정892

게임산업진흥에관한법률위반

Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From March 13, 2017 to March 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) installed and managed a type-type machine “C” extracted from the Defendant’s operation “C” in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu; (b) provided a type of money worth KRW 50,000 to unspecified customers using the said machine as free gifts in excess of the market price of KRW 40,00 to KRW 50,00,00,000; and (c) accordingly, partially revised the facts charged to the extent that it does not materially disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of each police officer against the defendant or D;

1. Reporting on detection (the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry) and the application of photographic Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of crackdown;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 44 (1) 1-2, and Article 28 subparagraph 3 (generality) of the Act on the Promotion of Alternative Game Industry, and Selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [Defendant and defense counsel] Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (as stated in the above criminal facts, not only KRW 40,000 to KRW 50,000 but also KRW 10,00 to KRW 15,00,00, and Defendant’s act does not constitute the act that encourages speculation

The argument is asserted.

In light of the legislative purport of Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act that intends to prevent game products from speculation by properly regulating the method of running a game providing business in order to improve the cultural life of the people, and the text of the above provision of the Act, if premiums were to be given in violation of Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which directly determines whether to encourage speculation by delegation of delegation of delegation of delegation of delegation of delegation of the above provision, such an act of providing premiums that encourage speculation prohibited by the same Act.