게임산업진흥에관한법률위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The part of the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act that the Defendant engaged in the business of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is the actual owner of the game of this case. However, there was no fact that he operated the game of this case by exchanging the amount calculated by deducting 10% of commission from the points acquired by customers, such as the facts stated in paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, and only G engaged in illegal business by means of money fraud.
B) Although the Defendant did not request G to make a false statement as if he was the actual owner of the game of this case, G made a statement as actual owner of the game of this case, G did not have asked G to do so, it is difficult to see that the Defendant argued that it was unreasonable for the Defendant to control naval vessels and emphasized G to this end by itself. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, the Defendant alleged that he/she had engaged in a business of exchanging the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion and convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.
In light of the above legal principles, considering the circumstances properly explained by the court below, and the following facts or circumstances recognized in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is recognized that the defendant was engaged in the business of exchanging the results obtained through the use of game products in collusion with G, D, etc., so the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and otherwise, the judgment of the court below is erroneous and misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by