게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
In 2013, the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office that has been seized.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles regarding all the amount deposited into the Defendant’s account as criminal proceeds; however, the above amount was merely a withdrawal and delivery of the money deposited by the Defendant by account transfer for cash withdrawal by customers, and thus, the entire amount deposited is not owned by the Defendant, but is not the criminal proceeds of this case, and thus, the part of the lower court’s decision of additional collection is unreasonable. The Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”).
(2) According to Article 44(3) of the Act, since criminal proceeds from a crime are subject to additional collection, the profit actually accrued to the Defendant ought to be collected. Moreover, 21,062,00 won operating expenses for a seized game room shall be confiscated by this decision, and 21,062,00 won, which is confiscated from the total amount of criminal proceeds to be collected from the Defendant, shall be deducted from the total amount of criminal proceeds to be collected by the Defendant. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Article 48(1)1 of the ex officio judgment Criminal Act provides that an article provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts may be confiscated in whole or in part, if it does not belong to a person other than the criminal or if a person other than the criminal knowingly acquired it after the crime.
The lower court stated the number of the above vehicle as “BD” in the seizure protocol of Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2013, No. 2177, the evidence No. 2013, which is the evidence No. 2177, but is a clerical error.
Although the defendant was sentenced to forfeiture of a vehicle, there is no evidence to prove that the above vehicle was borrowed from the AU in an investigative agency, and the AU also stated that it was lent to the extent of a week, while there is no evidence to prove that the above vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender or acquired it even after the crime was committed.
Nevertheless, the court below held the above vehicle.