게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
No one shall distribute, provide for use, exhibit or keep the contents of game products different from those of the game products rated.
Around July 2013, the Defendant: (a) held a “E” game room in Paju-si, Paju-si, Paju-si, Paju-si; and (b) installed and operated game products with contents different from the contents classified therein; (c) the Defendant registered the operation of the game room in his own name in Paju-si; and (d) C conspired to operate the actual game room.
Therefore, around July 2013, the Defendant registered the said “E” game room in the name of the Defendant in the strike viewing around July 2013, and made it possible for C to actually operate the said game room, and C from November 2013 to February 17, 2014, “E” game was classified in the said “E” game site in the same condition as examples, chains, and automated, despite the game being classified in a state without automatic driving function, the Defendant installed 50 players visiting the said game room with additional automatic driving function, and made it possible for C to use the said game machine.
As a result, the defendant conspired with C to use game products with contents different from the game products rated.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Records and lists of seizure, and requests for results of appraisal;
1. A report on investigation (calculated the operating period);
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the site and photographs of seized articles;
1. Article 45 of the relevant Act on criminal facts, subparagraph 4 of Article 45 and Article 32 (1) 2 of the Act on the Selection of Game Industry Promotion, Article 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was that the Defendant had C, who was in control of the operation of an illegal game room, registered in his own name, facilitate the operation of the game room. Upon C’s request at the control site of this case, the Defendant made a statement at the police and the prosecution as if he was the actual businessman.