게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal doctrine misunderstandings (the assertion that an appeal was filed after the lapse of the time period for submission, or the decision is made thereafter) Defendant operated an O-type room for one year and seven months from August 15, 2013 to May 18, 2015, and if the operation was performed after six months from the beginning of the first operation, the Defendant gains a benefit of KRW 2 million per month and KRW 500,000 per month if the operation was performed well after the lapse of six months from the commencement of the first operation, and thus, the penalty surcharge for running the O-type room shall be calculated on the basis of KRW 50,000 per month, which is the minimum monthly profit.
However, the lower court calculated an excessive surcharge by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court appears to have collected 20,40,000 won from the Defendant ( = 15,400,000 won) on the ground that the profits earned by the Defendant from the operation of the O room was KRW 15,000,000 from the operation of the R room and KRW 5,40,000,000 from the Defendant.
2) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to deem that a surcharge should be imposed on the sum of KRW 2,270,000 ( = 1,6250,000 won per month) of the Defendant’s profits from the operation of the O-type room, and KRW 1,6250,00 ( = 13 months x 1250,000 won per month) of the Defendant’s profits from the actual operation of the O-type room, and KRW 6,455,00 ( = 43 days (from January 19, 201 to March 2, 201) x 1,50,000 won (=6250,000 won) that the Defendant actually operated the R-type room. It is more than 2,400,000 as recognized by the court below.
A) At the time of the prosecutorial investigation on July 1, 2015, the Defendant: “The Defendant operated the Obscam room from August 1, 2013 to May 2015; P operated the Obscam room for two months around the summer in 2014.
for six months after the commencement of the operation.