The meaning of “act of having a game user do gambling or other speculative act, or neglecting to do so,” which is punished under Articles 44(1)1 and 28 subparag. 2 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and whether an act of having a game user do gambling or other speculative act by simply installing game products constitutes such act (negative)

Article 44 (1) 1 and Article 28 subparagraph 2 of the Game Industry Promotion Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2011No1952 decided June 15, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 28 Subparag. 2 of the Game Industry Promotion Act provides that “no one shall cause a game user to engage in gambling or other speculative acts, or neglect to do so, using the game products.” Article 44(1)1 of the same Act provides that “any person who causes a game user to engage in gambling or other speculative acts, or neglect to do so, in violation of the provisions of Article 28 Subparag. 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won.” Here, “the act of causing a game user to engage in gambling or other speculative acts, or neglecting to do so,” refers to having a game user do gambling or other speculative acts, or aiding and abetting or neglecting them even though he/she actually performs gambling or other speculative acts, and it does not constitute “the act of simply installing a game product so that a game user may engage in gambling or other speculative acts.”

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof that gambling and other speculative acts using the game of this case were actually performed in the game of this case in the game of this case established by the Defendant as to the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act that the Defendant had engaged in gambling and other speculative acts using the game of this case, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the interpretation of Article 44 (1) 1 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but there is no statement in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief on the grounds of objection.

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

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)