logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.12.21 2018노1568
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles on confiscation, the facts charged of the instant case are as follows: “Although the instant game machine (No. 1 evidence, No. 60) was rated to prevent arbitrary initialization of the substance of stored data without any separate device, the Defendant provided customers with a separate settlement function to check the IC card’s game points by sticking the IC card to the card terminal connected to a smartphone, so it constitutes subject to confiscation by enabling the instant game machine to commit the instant crime by combining it with the IC card terminal.”

In addition, even though the defendant had already been punished for suspended execution due to money exchange related to the game product, there is a large number of illegality by committing the crime of this case which differs from the specific method, and the investigative agency denied the game machine in order to promptly return the game machine of this case, the court below made a confession of the crime of this case in order to promptly return the game machine of this case and did not separate his mistake, and thus, the game machine of this case becomes subject to confiscation by contributing to the crime of this case, but the game of this case itself is not opened or altered, and the degree of illegality is somewhat minor, and the game of this case is an object independent of the ICT card device of this case, and the degree of illegality is somewhat minor, and the court below's decision which did not confiscate the game of this case on the ground that the defendant's economic loss is considerable.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (7 million won in penalty, confiscation) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. The facts charged of this case revealed that the defendant provided game products different from the rated game products, and thus, the defendant's illegality was weak rather than the same kind of crime prior to the exchange.

arrow