게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
. Prosecutors;
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) In light of the misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion of Defendant A’s reasoning), Defendant A’s functional control over the instant crime is sufficiently recognized. Thus, even if the profits from the instant crime were not directly attributed to him, Defendant A constitutes a co-principal, not a aiding and abetting offender of the instant crime, even though the profits from the instant crime were not directly attributed to him/her, Defendant A constitutes a co-principal, not a aiding and abetting offender of the instant crime. (2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (as to the Defendant, Defendant B: one year of suspended sentence; two years of suspended sentence in 1 year of imprisonment; two years of suspended sentence in 8 months of imprisonment; two years of suspended sentence in 10 months; Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor; and six months in 6 months).
B. Defendant A(1) Dogno No. 5 mobile phone (Evidence No. 11) seized on the part of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not subject to confiscation, since the articles provided or intended to be provided for the instant crime, or the articles produced or acquired due to the instant crime, which are not subject to confiscation. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on Defendant A
A. On January 13, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of aiding and abetting in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. at the Daejeon District Court on January 13, 2016, and the execution of the sentence is completed in the Daejeon Correctional District Court on April 15, 2016.
No one shall engage in the business of exchanging or arranging the exchange or repurchase of tangible or intangible results obtained through the use of game products.
Nevertheless, around April 2017, Defendant A was aware of the type of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc., as seen above at the request of Defendant A to operate a game room and bitco exchange, and the game room is considered as “C,” and there is E, Defendant D, and B in G from that time.