게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A regarding Defendant A is reversed.
One year of imprisonment with prison labor for the accused.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A 1) G Game room in addition to the Defendant’s statement of mistake of facts (hereinafter “instant game room”).
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable and unreasonable, on the grounds that there are no specific data to calculate the criminal proceeds of the Defendant due to the operation of the business.
B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. Whether the relevant legal doctrine is subject to forfeiture and collection, and the recognition of the amount of additional collection, etc. are not related to the facts constituting the elements of the crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove strict evidence, but also necessary to be recognized by evidence. In a case where it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to forfeiture and additional collection, it
Meanwhile, since the purpose of collection of the profits derived from a criminal act of violation of Article 44(1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act is to deprive the illegal profits and prevent them from holding them, where several persons jointly gain profits from the illegal game room business, the amount of money distributed, that is, the profit actually accrued, shall be collected individually, and even if the expenses paid by the criminal to obtain criminal profits have been disbursed from the criminal proceeds, it is merely a method of consuming criminal proceeds, and thus, it is not a means of deducting the criminal proceeds to be collected from the criminal proceeds to be collected.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708 Decided July 10, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1859 Decided April 11, 2013). Meanwhile, if there are parts already seized by an investigative agency among criminal proceeds and confiscated, such parts should be deducted from the calculation of the amount of additional collection.
B. In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on Defendant A’s statement, presumed the daily net income from the operation of the instant game room to June 16, 2015, based on the foregoing, to be KRW 250,000.