beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.11.15 2017노710

게임산업진흥에관한법률위반

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each sentence of the lower court’s respective punishment (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment; two years of suspended sentence for a community service order; two years of suspended sentence for six months; Defendant D: fine of fine of KRW 7 million; Defendant E: fine of KRW 5 million for Defendant E; and Defendant F: fine of KRW 2 million for two million) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects on the fact that Defendants C, D, E, and F performed an act as an employee, and the degree of participation in the instant crime is relatively heavy, and all the Defendants did not have any record of punishment exceeding the fine, and Defendant F did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, since the crime related to the illegal game industry is a highly harmful crime such as promoting a speculative spirit to the general public and impairing the awareness of sound labor, it is necessary to punish it strictly. Defendant B, when the game industry is controlled, takes the role of "one-person president" who was investigated as an unemployed owner, and the degree of participation in the crime is relatively more severe.

The fact that Defendant B appears to have been punished once for the same kind of crime, Defendant C five times for the same crime, Defendant D twice for the same crime, and Defendant E has been punished once for the same crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, there is no special change in circumstances that may otherwise determine the sentencing conditions and punishment different from the original judgment, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition [1. Social Service Order (Defendant A, B, and 3.) in the application of the law of the judgment below.]