Defendant 1 and three others

Red pets (prosecutions) and Kim Jong-chul (public trial)

Attorney Choi U.S.A. et al.

Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) shall be punished by imprisonment for 10 months, by imprisonment for 1 year, by imprisonment for Defendant 2, by imprisonment for 3 (Defendant 2 on the counter-board) for 8 months, and by fine for 3 million won, respectively.

When Defendant 4 fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Provided, That with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 2 shall order probation and community service for 160 hours to Defendant 2.

On November 10, 201, Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on April 12, 201, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Incheon Detention Center on April 12, 2012. Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for gambling, etc. at the Incheon District Court on January 21, 2014, and confirmed March 27, 2014.

1. Defendant 1 (Defendant 1), Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

The Defendants gathered to operate the gambling site, and Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) managed the overall operation of the gambling site, including the operation of the gambling site and the call center, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) decided to take charge of the development of the gambling program and the management of the server.

The original “○ Game” is a game product classified by the Game Rating Board with the content that it is possible for adults over 19 years of age to join the game, such as “O○ Game”, “the appropriate,” and “sacker,” and is a game product with the content that mobile phones, passbook payments, cultural products, books and merchandise coupons, game culture merchandise coupons, and pre-paid cards, and cyber money payment limit per one resident registration number is KRW 300,000 per month, and the game money acquired as a result of the game can not be converted or commercialized into another form.

However, unlike the original game, the Defendants were created without confirming the real name or resident registration number of the game user in the franchise bank, and the game user can charge a coophone with a coophone sold at the store without charging a glock with a mobile phone, book-making merchandise coupon, etc., and in the game process, the Defendants added AI (Roter Program) to a game with actual game users and added contents that can arbitrarily manipulate the winning rate of AI users.

The Defendants established an organization, such as “store (franchiscam)” to enable customers to play a game and exchange the game of this case, and “total board,” “duplicate,” “duplicate,” “general director,” “partnership,” “business director,” and “cyber money charging and exchange, accounts settlement of profits at each stage, call center operation, and server management, etc.

From September 2012 to May 29, 2013, the Defendants established a “○ Game” site on the Internet, and deposited the money into the account managed by the “store” through the said business organization after providing the game money to the “store,” and let the game users purchase the game money in cash at the store, and conduct the game such as “Ba,” “mast,” “mast,” and “math,” etc. by accessing the instant game site, and allowing the game users to acquire or lose the game money acquired by the game users after deducting the amount of money from the credit card and the spath if a certain association is formed in the said game, and then exchange the money for the game money acquired by the game users through subordinate organizations such as the store, etc. upon request, by cash or by directly remitting it to the user’s account.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to open gambling for profit by allowing users of the game site of this case to walk an unamount of gambling and play a game, provided game products different from the contents classified by the Game Rating Board for use, and exchanged tangible and intangible results obtained through the use of game products.

2. Defendant 2

The Defendant, like Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4, gathered to operate the Internet gambling site, and Nonindicted 2, he managed the overall operation of the gambling site; Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4, who was in charge of the operation of the call center; Nonindicted 4, who was in charge of call center management and call phone delivery; and the Defendant, who was in charge of the development of the gambling program and the management of the server.

It is originally a game of 19 years of age or older that provides games, such as mobile phones, pre-paid cards, cultural products products, books and cultural products certificates, KTTRS, and cellphones, and cyber money settlement limit and Arabic purchase limit per resident registration number are KRW 100,000 won per day, KRW 100,000 won per week, and KRW 300,000 won per month, and KRW 50,000 per month, and KRW 50,000,000 from the Game Rating Committee are game products, which are classified by the Game Rating Committee, with the content that the game money acquired as a result of the game can be converted or commercialized in any other form.

However, unlike the original game, the defendant and non-indicted 1 et al. created a member ID without confirming the real name or resident registration number of the game user in the fachisp room. The game user can charge a fachisp with a coophone sold at the store without filling the fachis in mobile phones, books, gift certificates, etc., and developed a game by inserting AI (robot program) in the game process so that the game user can play a game with the actual game user, and adding contents that can arbitrarily manipulate the winning rate of the AI.

The Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, etc. established an organization system, such as the “store store”, “franchisor store”, “franchisor store”, “franchisor company”, “partnership company”, “partnership company”, “business principal company”, “cyber money charging and exchange, settlement of profits at each stage, call center operation, and server management, etc. to enable customers to make a game and exchange, and established a call center in the Incheon-do in order to avoid tracking the investigation agency.

From September 201 to February 201, 201, the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, etc. opened a site of “△△△ Game” from around the Internet, from around February 201 to June 2012, 201, to “Seoul”, from June 2012 to June 2012, from around December 201, to “△△△ Game”, and from around December 19, 2012, from around December 201 to around June 19, 2013, they received money from the users of the game of this case to purchase cash money at the store, and let users acquire the money from the game of this case, and then directly acquire or lose money from the users of the game of this case by means of money or money exchange at least 12% of the users of the game of this case.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Defendant opened gambling for profit by allowing users of the game site of this case to walk money of KRW 1,073,972,548 per day and play games, and provided game products different from the contents classified by the Game Rating Board for use, and exchanged tangible and intangible results acquired through the use of game products.

3. Defendant 4

The Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 6 and Defendant 1 (Defendant 1), developed a program for gambling online around December 2012, and established it on the server. The Defendant opened the website of the Game Rating Board without being classified by the Game Rating Board, from February 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013, opened its members and recruited its members, and transferred money to Nonindicted 5 (Account number omitted), which was established in advance for the purpose of hiding the Defendants’ personal information, from the members, to April 30, 2013, to fill the cyber money of its members through the Internet, and had its members fill the said cyber money, and received four copies of cards using the card and received four copies each time, and then opened the cards to change the number of its members, and then made it difficult for the members to fill the remaining number of its members under the name of Defendant 1’s cyber money and five (one-half).

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 6 and Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 on the market), opened gambling for profit-making purposes, provided ungraded game products for distribution or use, exchanged tangible and intangible results obtained through the use of game products, and pretended about acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds.

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) and Defendant 4

1. Defendant 1 (Defendant 1)’s partial statement

1. Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) and Nonindicted 7’s each legal statement

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 6

1. Each prosecutorial statement concerning Nonindicted 8

1. In an investigation report (Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) attachment of data on the restoration of Nompt, Defendant 2, Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 on board) attachment of Nompt analysis files seized at Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 on board), Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 on board), Defendant 1 through 4, Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 on board) attachment of a computer extraction file seized at the existence of ○○○ games operated by Nonindicted 7, and Defendant 2 attachment of a mobile analysis report, Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 on board) execution report, Defendant 2 attachment of a search, seizure and verification warrant, Defendant 5’s entry and withdrawal, attachment of a list of deposits submitted by Defendant 5 on

1. Before judgment: Each criminal record and investigation report (defendant 1 (defendant 1) of a suspect, attached to materials related to repeated crimes);

[In full view of the aforementioned evidence: (a) the computer extraction file to the effect that Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) operated the instant ○○ Game from May 1, 2013 before being arrested; or (b) the file name to the effect that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) made the instant ○ Game; and (c) the above criminal facts against Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) are sufficiently recognized in full view of the following:

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) of the Act: Each of Articles 247 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 45 and Article 32(1)2 of the Promotion of respective Game Industry Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of providing game products different from those classified), Articles 44(1)2 and 32(1)7 of the Promotion of respective Game Industry Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 44(1)2 and Article 32(1)7 of the Act on Promotion of respective Game Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of using game products exchange business), each of which is imprisonment.

B. Defendant 2: Articles 247 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 45 subparagraph 4 and Article 32 (1) 2 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of providing game products different from those classified as game products), Article 44 (1) 2 and Article 32 (1) 7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of exchanging game products with the result of each game), each of the choice of imprisonment

C. Defendant 4: Articles 247 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of a gambling place), Article 45 subparagraph 4 and Article 32 (1) 2 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of providing game products that are different from those of the game products rated), Article 44 (1) 2 and Article 32 (1) 7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of obtaining criminal proceeds, etc.), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of obtaining criminal proceeds, etc.)

1. Concurrent Handling (Defendant 1) (Defendant 1) : The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (Criminal Defendant 1)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 4): Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2): Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Community service order (Defendant 2): Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The assertion;

① Although Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) was able to be prosecuted for the instant crime, Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) committed the instant crime, it was an abuse of prosecution discretion. Thus, the public prosecutor’s indictment of the instant crime should be dismissed as to the instant public prosecution, or the instant crime constitutes a single comprehensive crime, and thus, the instant facts charged should be acquitted as it constitutes a case where a final judgment has already become final and conclusive.

2. Determination

In light of the facts stated in the record, it is difficult to interfere with the investigation of the crime of this case by obstructing the investigation, such as destroying the server of the illegal game of this case, which is an important evidence by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2). In addition, it is necessary to investigate the crime of this case because there is a high possibility that there is another accomplice other than the above Defendants, and Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) did not cooperate with the investigation. In light of the fact that the prosecution of this case is sufficient reasons and circumstances that were raised after the appellate court of the previous case, and at least there is no intention of abuse of prosecution. ② The crime of this case is an online crime based on the "○○ Game" and the crime of gambling based on the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 (Defendant 2) were the same one who operated the game of this case, and thus, it cannot be seen as an unlawful game of this case.

Defendant 1 (Defendant 1): In light of the fact that the crime of this case was planned in advance to damage the sound labor spirit of the entire society, to masse many victims, and to take wrong motivations rather than contingent or maintaining the livelihood, the crime of this case is not easy, and that the defendant is the principal offender of the crime of this case, and that the defendant denies part of the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, and that the defendant was aware that it was illegal game products, the punishment is considered when the defendant was judged like the crime that became final and conclusive, and all circumstances such as the defendant's environment are considered.

Defendant 3 (Defendant 2): The defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of suspension of execution, and committed the same criminal records, the degree of participation, the degree of participation, the profits earned therefrom, and all other circumstances, including the defendant's environment, shall be considered.

Defendant 2: Taking into account all circumstances, such as the defendant's degree of participation is not easy but reflects on depth, and the defendant has no criminal record of the same kind or suspension of execution or any other criminal record.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1 (Defendant 1), Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2 on the counter-board), the part on which Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 on the counter-board), Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2 on the counter-board), 540,057,536 won average per day, and Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 on the counter-board) and Defendant 2 on the face of 272,03,660 won and 68 million won.

The evidence presented as to this is insufficient to recognize the above evidence in light of the following: (a) investigation report (Defendant 1 (Defendant 1), 2069 pages from attached files extracted from a computer seized at the existence of a game of Do governor 7, and (b) investigation report (Defendant 1 (Defendant 1), and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2). However, according to each of the statements by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2), the pertinent server was fit for attack and was not operated normally due to the failure to pay server usage fees; and (c) some of the money received by Defendant 2 was paid as part of server usage fees, so it is difficult to determine innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of a crime; or (d) as long as finding guilty of the remainder of the crime relation, the collection shall not be sentenced separately from the disposition.

Judges Noh Jeong-man