게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses relating to witnesses shall be borne by the defendant among the costs of lawsuit in the original judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was paying considerable attention and supervision to prevent employees D from having access to juveniles during the hours of access restriction to juveniles.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 47 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry as to the assertion of mistake of facts provides that “When a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation or individual commits an offence under the provisions of Articles 44 through 46 in connection with the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine under the respective Articles.
Provided, That this shall not apply where a corporation or an individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation.
“......”
Therefore, unless it is proved that employees D neglected to observe the hours for admitting juveniles, the defendant cannot be punished unless he/she proves that he/she neglected to observe the hours for admitting juveniles.
In doing so, according to the statements of the investigation agency and the court below in D, the defendant ordered D to conduct an identification card inspection for all persons who enter or remain in the PC after 10 p.m. 10 p.m., not the defendant's identification card inspection for all persons suspected of entering or leaving the PC after 10 p.m., and it is acknowledged that the defendant did not have been in the PC during the hours of access restriction to juveniles and did not separately confirm whether D complies with the hours for admitting juveniles. Accordingly, according to the above facts acknowledged, the defendant is sufficiently recognized that he neglected to exercise due care or supervision over the PC work of this case, and thus, the defendant's assertion of fact is without merit.
B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing.