[1] Criteria for distinguishing between the inclusive crime and the substantive concurrent crime

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below convicting each of the above facts charged on the facts charged of violation of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act and the facts charged of this case which are similar to the above facts charged before the above judgment became final and conclusive, on the ground that each of the above facts charged was guilty on the ground that the defendant's act of renewal exists when the game room operated by the defendant is seized and its business is resumed after the seizure of relevant evidence

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the defendant who was prosecuted for violating the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Products Act cannot be seen as having no possibility of legitimate expectation on the ground that an application for suspending the execution of a disposition of suspension of business was provisionally accepted

[1] Where a number of acts falling under the name of the same crime continues to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each act shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of the criminal's intent are not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not the same, each act constitutes substantive concurrent crimes.

[2] The case affirming the court below's finding that the crime of violation of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act (repealed by Act No. 7943 of Apr. 28, 2006), i.e., speculative game products cannot be given free gifts, but the defendant, from March 2, 2005 to July 14 of the same year, and from January 17, 2006, the crime of violation of the crime of violation of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act (amended by Act No. 7943 of Apr. 28, 2006), which committed the crime of violation of the crime of violation of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act, committed the crime of violation of the crime of violation of the crime of violation of the above Act, and the crime of violation of the crime of violation of the above Act was committed by the defendant from around 10 to 10:30 of Sep. 16, 2006 and the crime of seizure of gift certificates from around 20: 10:106th of the same year.

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that the suspension of execution against the disposition of suspension of execution cannot be viewed as having no possibility of expectation of lawful act against the defendant's violation of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act (repealed by Act No. 7943 of Apr. 28, 2006) solely on the ground that the application for suspension of execution was provisionally accepted, since the effect of the disposition was suspended until the decision of revocation of the disposition of suspension of execution was rendered by the defendant until the decision of revocation of disposition of suspension of execution

[1] Article 37 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 32 subparagraph 3 of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Products Act (repealed by Act No. 7943 of Apr. 28, 2006, see Article 28 subparagraph 3 of the current Game Industry Promotion Act), Article 50 subparagraph 3 (see Article 44 (1) 1-2 of the current Game Industry Promotion Act) / [3] Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 32 subparagraph 3 (see Article 28 subparagraph 3 of the current Game Industry Promotion Act), Article 50 subparagraph 3 (see Article 44 (1) 1-2 of the current Game Industry Promotion Act) of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Products Act (repealed by Act No. 7943 of Apr. 28, 2006)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4051 Decided September 30, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1757), Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3172 Decided September 8, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 2026), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4404 Decided July 26, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1422)

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2007No338, 1426 decided September 21, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the aforementioned facts charged, where multiple acts constituting the same crime were conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, each act should be punished as a single comprehensive crime. However, where the singleness and continuity of a crime is not recognized or the method of crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do278, May 13, 2005; 2006Do3172, Sept. 8, 2006). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Sound Records, Video Products, and Game Products, which were concluded by the Defendant from 00 to 100 days before the date of seizure of gift certificates (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da3172, Mar. 2, 2005). The Defendant, even though he/she did not consider gift certificates to be distributed to customers from 100 to 200Da31064, supra.

On the other hand, in a case where a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition is instituted under the Administrative Act, it is exceptionally acknowledged when there is an urgent need to prevent irrevocable damage caused by the execution of the disposition or the continuation of the procedure (Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act). The above system is nothing more than seeking a provisional remedy prior to the propriety judgment of the application concerning the case on the merits of the case on the merits. In this case, the decision suspending the suspension of the execution of the disposition was made by the defendant until the decision on the revocation of the disposition on the grounds that the administrative agency’s disposition was suspended until the decision on the revocation of the disposition on the grounds that the decision on suspending the execution of the disposition was made by the defendant, and the illegality of the disposition was not finally declared by the administrative agency. Therefore, the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)