A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (property flight abroad)

(b) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

C. Violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act

(d) Violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act;

(e) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc.

(f) Abetting an offender;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No1948 Decided December 17, 2009

March 11, 2010

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the remainder of conviction except for violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) regarding running a general game providing business without permission

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below found the defendant guilty of each crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (property flight out of Korea), violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, violation of each Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, and violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry (the use and provision of unregistered game products and the fact exchange business of game products), and the collection of the amount as stated in the judgment of the court below,

2. Prior to determining the ground of appeal on the part of the ground of appeal on the violation of the Game Industry Act (the point of running a general game providing business without permission), it is ex officio.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant, among the facts charged in the case of this case, that "the defendant was guilty of the violation of Article 2 (4) of the Act by providing a general game providing a game providing business for the use of customers without permission from the competent authority from the end of the second floor to January 30, 207 without obtaining permission from the competent authority, in collusion with the non-indicted 1, the head of the office, the non-indicted 2, and the head of the office, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 4, the above building.

However, the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the Constitution and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act stipulate the principle of prohibition of retroactive effect of penal provisions, and Article 26(1) of the Act is amended by Act No. 8247 of Jan. 19, 207.

As prescribed by Presidential Decree with the permission of the head of a Si/Gun/Gu with regard to the procedures, etc., a provision is newly established, and Article 45 subparagraph 2 of the Game Industry Act is amended to punish an act of running a general game providing business without permission for a violation of Article 26 (1). Since it was enforced from April 20, 207, it was enforced from the enforcement date of the revised Game Industry Act, punishing an act of running a general game providing business without permission prior to the enforcement date pursuant to each of the above provisions of the revised Game Industry Act is punished by the law at the time of judgment, and thus, it is against the principle of prohibition of retroactive effect of penal provisions.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant engaged in a general game providing business without permission prior to the enforcement date of the above amended Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the principle of prohibition of retroactive effect of penal law, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it cannot

3. Scope of reversal

Of the guilty portion of the judgment below, the part of the non-licensed general game providing business should be reversed as above. Since one sentence is imposed on concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the remaining parts which the court below found guilty, the conviction portion in the judgment of the court below should be reversed. Meanwhile, the acquittal portion in the judgment of the court below is also in the relation between each guilty portion which is reversed and each blanket crime, and this part should be reversed together.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Kim Ji-hyung

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn

Justices Yang Chang-soo