게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year;
2.Provided, That this ruling shall have become final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
B is a business owner who registered a juvenile game providing business under the trade name of "E" after providing investment funds on the second floor of the building of the Busan Dong-gu D, Busan, and the defendant A is a person who is in a partnership operating the above "E" jointly.
A person who intends to produce or distribute a game product for the purpose of providing for the distribution or use of the game product shall obtain rating on the contents of the game product concerned from the Game Rating Committee before producing or distributing the game product concerned, and shall not provide the contents of the game product different from those of the rating for the distribution or use, or display or keep the game product for such purpose.
1. On February 2012, “SEA PAY” game was classified by the Game Rating Board as a pure ability game that requires the active participation of game users by simply operating a game or using an external device, etc., and that is, a game is classified by the Game Rating Board, by means of a pure ability game that requires the active participation of game users, if it obtains scores by putting a water flag appearing on the left and left of a screen.
From early February 2012, from February 2012 to February 22:30 of the same month, the Defendants operated the said “E”, and, unlike the contents classified by the Game Rating Board, input a cash into the ground inputs of the game machine, automatically implement the game without the user’s pressing, and differently from the game description submitted to the Game Rating Board, the frequency and time of the appearance of the high-rises, the location of the appearance, and the location of the appearance were different from the game description submitted to the Game Rating Board, and provided 40 unspecified customers with the ESPAPAR games for use so as not to affect the user’s ability.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to provide game products with contents different from the contents classified by the Game Rating Board for use.
2. On June 2012: