(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.10 2016노2122

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.10 2016노2122

게임산업진흥에관한법률위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the devices listed in the facts charged in the instant case do not correspond to the Internet game facilities as a Huuri Movement Organization, and customers have used bbles installed in the said devices free of charge. Therefore, it is difficult to find the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged because the Defendant’s act does not constitute an unregistered Internet game facility business

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, deemed that the devices stated in the instant facts charged constitute Internet game facilities under the relevant statutes, and that the Defendant offered the said devices to customers.

I explained that the defendant's assertion was rejected.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the record, the above judgment of the lower court is just and acceptable, and there was no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles alleged by the Defendant in the lower judgment (in particular, in relation to the provision of pay, the Defendant made a clear statement to the effect that he can use it by entering into all strings and strings with the investigative agency.

Even if all the blosts were on the blosts, even if the fee was not charged, the blosts were attached to the blosts to provide the users of the blosts, and the defendant cannot be allowed to sit in the blosts to use the blosts only without using the blosts. Ultimately, the use of the blosts are premised on the fee as a unit with the blosts organization.

It is reasonable to view it.

Defendant also.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.10.13 2015고정1765

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.06.22 2018고단314

-서울남부지방법원 2018.10.18 2017노380

-대전고등법원 2018.09.07 2018노241

-부산지방법원 2017.12.01 2017노2335