No game products-related business entity shall promote speculation by providing free gifts, etc.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2017. 2. 7. 경부터 2017. 3. 8. 경까지 사이에 김천시 E 에서 청소년 게임제공업소인 ‘F’ 을 운영하면서 크레인 게임기 11대( 유니온 10대, 짱 1대 )를 설치하여 그곳에 손님으로 온 불특정 다수인을 상대로 캐릭터 인형 인 헬로우 키 티, 스티치 스탠다드, 피 카 츄 등 각각 5,000원 이상의 경품을 제공하는 방법으로 사행성을 조장하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted to the effect that internal investigation report (as to the selling price of the consumer), internal investigation report (as to attachment of a registration certificate), investigation report (as to attachment of a personal photo) (as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel, game machine in the judgment cannot be deemed to encourage speculation, and the gift offered by the defendant is supplied at a price not exceeding 5,000 won as it is not sold to the general consumers, and thus, the consumer price of the light product cannot be deemed to exceed 5,00 won.

In light of the legislative purport of Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act and the text of the above provision to prevent the speculation of game products by properly regulating the method of running the business of game providing business in order to improve the quality of the people's cultural life, if premiums were to be provided in violation of Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Promotion Act, which is directly prescribed as to the encouragement of speculation by delegation of the above provision, the act constitutes an act of offering premiums which encourages speculation prohibited by the Game Industry Promotion Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10565, Jun. 11, 200). Meanwhile, if the defendant offered premiums in violation of Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Promotion of Game Industry, which is directly prescribed as to the encouragement of speculation by delegation of the above provision, it constitutes an act of offering premiums which encourage speculation (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10