게임산업진흥에관한법률위반등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Seized evidence of heading 4, 5, and 8 shall be confiscated.
Punishment of the crime
No one shall provide game products not classified by the Game Rating Board for use, and even if he/she does not exchange, exchange, arrange for exchange, or repurchase tangible and intangible results obtained through the use of the game products, he/she shall not do so as a business. However, the defendant installed 18 units of "Yetoma Game", an electronic device with no trade name on March 14, 2013, from around 14:00 to around 18:40, March 18, 2013, which is not classified in the "Cntoma Game Site" located in the "Cntoe" located in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju, with 30,000 won from customers, and conducted a business of exchanging the points of 2,000 points of the above game machine with 30,000 won from customers, and after the completion of the game, he/she provided the game with the points of 2,000 won.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. The protocol of seizure, and the request for cooperation and cooperation with investigation;
1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to control field photographs and daily book copies;
1. Relevant Article on criminal facts, Articles 44 (1) 2, 32 (1) 1 (which provides for the use of game products not rated), 44 (1) 2, and 32 (1) 7 (which provides for the use of game products) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 32 (1) 1 (a) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc., and Article 30 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. (which provides for the use of game products not rated), and each decision of imprisonment;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Confiscation Industry is against the defendant's mistake while recognizing the crime of this case. However, even though the defendant had been convicted of the same suspended execution, there are significant social harm that leads to the crime of this case and the speculative act.