게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and for six months, each of the defendants C shall be punished by imprisonment.
seizure.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because each of the punishments (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and two months, confiscation and additional collection, Defendant C: imprisonment of ten months and confiscation) declared by the court below to the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. In the crime of this case, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant A in collusion with a money exchange merchant B for about four months and the distribution of tangible and intangible results obtained through the use of a game product by running the game room at about 50 months. ② The Defendants engaged in the business of returning the results of tangible and intangible results acquired through the use of the game product in collusion with D and E for about 15 days by operating the game room at about 40 days in collusion with D and E. The crime of this case was considerably poor in light of the number of the game machine operated by the game product of this case, the scale of business place and the method of business, etc., and as above, the acts of running the business of refunding the results of intangible and intangible results acquired through the use of the game product of this case were considerably harmful to the Defendants.
However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendants led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendants made a confession of all the instant crimes; and (c) Defendant A did not have any history of any other crime except for the two criminal punishment of fines for the crime of driving under the Road Traffic Act; (b) Defendant C did not have any history of any other crime except for the one-time suspended from the execution of the instant crime; and (c) the two-time criminal punishment of fines; and (d) other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, including equity in sentencing with the same and similar incidents, the age of the Defendants, sexual behavior, environment, motive and background of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, all of
Therefore, each of the above arguments by the Defendants is with merit.
3. If so, the Defendants’ appeal is reasonable. Thus, Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.