게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who operates a game room with no mutual recognition in Gwangju Northern-gu C3.
No one shall provide for the distribution or use, or display or keep for such purposes, a game product which has not been rated, and no one shall exchange, exchange, arrange for exchange or repurchase the intangible results obtained through the use of a game product for a business.
From September 22, 2016 to September 27, 2016, the Defendant established 26 game machine for the instant game and provided 10,000 won to customers, and entered 10,000 won into the game machine, and then exchanged the score obtained by the customers using the game water into 10,00 won.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Each statement of D, E, F, and G;
1. Responses with the results of appraisal;
1. Reporting on detection (Violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry) and field photographs;
1. Application of the present Acts and subordinate statutes of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 44(1)2 and 32(1)1 (a) of the former Promotion of the Game Industry Act (Amended by Act No. 14424, Dec. 20, 2016); Articles 44(1)2 and 32(1)7 of the same Act (which means the provision for the use of game products in violation of rating classification); and each of imprisonment options, respectively.
1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);
1. Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Confiscation Industry (hereinafter “Confiscation”) does not additionally collect the remaining criminal proceeds since it is difficult to specify the criminal proceeds only with the defendant’s approximate statement (Evidence No. 32 pages) (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392, Jun. 28, 2008).