logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2006. 12. 8. 선고 2006도6400 판결
[사행행위등규제및처벌특례법위반·음반·비디오물및게임물에관한법률위반][공2007.1.15.(266),166]
Main Issues

Whether not only the machine board of a speculative game machine, but also the body is provided for criminal acts, and is subject to confiscation (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

A speculative game machine is a machine that can function only when the machine and main body are physically combined with each other, and even if the authority has lawfully conducted a rating examination, its entire, including the main body, is a thing provided for criminal acts, and is subject to confiscation.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 30(1)4 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. (amended by Act No. 7901 of March 24, 2006) (see current Article 30(1)1 of the Act), Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant 1 and one other

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendants

Defense Counsel

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Chang-tae et al.

Judgment of the lower court

Suwon District Court Decision 2006No1770 decided September 5, 2006

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the records, the game of this case’s “sulphy” (hereinafter “the game of this case”) is a machine that can function only when the machine and main body are physically combined with each other, and it can be known that the Defendants used the game of this case to allow customers to perform speculative acts. As such, the whole of the game of this case, including the main body, should be confiscated as a thing provided for criminal acts, and the game of this case is not different from the fact that the game of this case was lawfully rated by the authorities.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the main body as well as the press of the game of this case shall be subject to confiscation is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation due to violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)

arrow