beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2013.04.10 2012고단3134

게임산업진흥에관한법률위반

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and by a fine of four million won.

Defendant

B does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 28, 201, Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct: (a) leased an office located in Dasan-si E with the trade name of “F at that time; (b) completed the business registration; (c) on January 28, 2012, Defendant A installed 40 amusement equipment in the name of “SNE” in the said game site and operated the game site; (d) on March 201, Defendant A continued to operate the said game site by installing 40 entertainment equipment in the name of “SNE” and operating the said entertainment equipment by April 4, 2012.

However, all of the above “NEN” and “New Aloneidine” games were rated by the Game Rating Board, but the Defendant actually performed a game product with an addition of examples and chain functions through an external storage device (USB), thereby allowing customers who found in the above entertainment room to perform the modified game as above.

As a result, the defendant provided game products different from the contents of the classification to customers for use.

2. Defendants A, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1), installed a entertainment machine and operated F, and Defendant A again installed 40 entertainment equipment for “Ie 2” and operated the said game room from that time until June 13, 2012, to which Defendant A employed Defendant B as an employee, for the purpose of creating the said entertainment machine to mislead and operate the said entertainment machine.

However, all of the above "Are 2" games were rated by the Game Rating Board, but the Defendants actually performed a game product modified by adding an example and a chain function through an external storage device (USB), so that customers who found in the above entertainment room can perform the said modified game, and they exchanged an item card obtained as a result of the game by customers at 10% fee.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to make a game product different from the content of the rating classification.