beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.06.02 2017노365

게임산업진흥에관한법률위반

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A (1) Defendant A (the head of the game of this case) was playing on the game of this case, and the head of the game of this case did not operate the game of this case jointly upon Defendant B’s request, and the court below found Defendant A as a joint owner of the game of this case and convicted Defendant A of the facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (one and half years of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant B (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts 1) The lower court: (a) specifically stated the situation at the time of control and the specific circumstances of the week, including that Defendant A, who did not work at the site of the game site, was aware of the business owner of the game site in the process of receiving a written statement by separating the G, etc. among customers from this court; and (b) was a guest at the time of regulating the game site of this case.

H, I, and G prepared a written statement to the effect that Defendant A was categorized as the proprietor of the game of this case and made and delivered a written statement to the effect that he was able to exchange the same. In light of the fact that the Defendant was separated and prepared and delivered a written statement individually, the credibility of the written statement is high, while the above H et al. stated in the court of original instance that the police specified the details of the preparation in the written statement to the effect that he was aware of the owner of the business or that he would promptly return to the house. The above written statement is deemed to be less reliable because the reasons and reasons for the reversal of the statement are not persuasive, and the above written statement is deemed to be insufficient, and the Defendant A controlled the escape, and at the time of crackdown on the customer G, the “G 3” and the “I” need to compensate for it.

“Electrics”, “electric source lives”

“The message sent sent the text message, which is not the business owner of the game of this case.”