게임산업진흥에관한법률위반방조등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Cheongju District Public Prosecutor’s Office, seized No. 1549 of the Cheongju District Public Prosecutor’s Office, No. 1286 of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, No. 1286 of the 2014 pressure No. 1286 of the 2014 pressure; (b) No. 1 through 4 of the 2014 pressure No. 1457 of the same Public Prosecutor’s Office, and (c) No. 1, 1465 of the 2014 pressure No. 1465 of the same Public Prosecutor’s Office, the lower court sentenced only KRW 3 million of the fine without sentence of confiscation, contrary to the prosecutor’s former sentence that seeks confiscation. The foregoing sentence of the lower court is unreasonable.
2. According to Articles 44(2) and (1), 32(1)1 and 7 of the Act on the Promotion of ex officio Determination of the Game Industry, game products owned or occupied by a person who provides ungraded game products or conducts a business of exchanging game products as a result of acquisition by using game water, and game products owned or occupied by a person who conducts an act of exchanging game products as a result of acquisition by using the game products, profits from such criminal act, and property derived from such criminal act, shall be confiscated.
In this case, evidence Nos. 1549-1 of the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office, evidence Nos. 1286-2 through 4 of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office 2014 pressure No. 1286 of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 457 of the prosecutor's office 2014 pressure No. 1457 of the same prosecutor's office, and evidence No. 1465 of the same prosecutor's office No. 2014 pressure No. 1 of the same prosecutor's office, the defendant, who is the president of the branch office of each game of this case, shall be confiscated from the defendant as necessary.
Nevertheless, the court below omitted the judgment of forfeiture. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on forfeiture as prescribed in Article 44 (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
[Judgment] The facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court, as well as the case.