The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

The number of seized clocks 40(No. 1), flocks 20(No. 20).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) was 20 pro-Japaneses (No. 3) provided to unspecified customers in the game of this case, and it is evident that the game of this case was used temporarily or temporarily for money exchange business in the game of this case even if the game of this case was installed on the new wall on the day of seizure, such as the Defendant’s vindication.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not confiscate 20 gold No. 10 was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 32(1)7 and 44(1) and (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”), a person who conducts an act of exchanging or mediating exchange or re-purchase of tangible and intangible results (referring to score, premiums, virtual currency used in a game, which is prescribed by Presidential Decree, and things similar thereto prescribed by Presidential Decree) obtained through the use of a game product shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, and the game products owned or occupied by a person corresponding thereto shall be confiscated, and if such confiscation is impossible, the value shall be additionally collected.

In light of the legislative purport of the Game Industry Promotion Act, such as the contents of each of the above provisions, the eradicating of speculative game products, and the creation of a healthy game culture, game products owned or occupied by a person who exchanged, arranged for exchange, or re-purchase of tangible and intangible results obtained through the use of game products in violation of Article 32(1)7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act shall be deemed to be subject to the necessary forfeiture stipulated in Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, insofar as the game products are deemed to have contributed substantially to the performance of such violation.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do70 Decided March 10, 201 and Supreme Court Decision September 14, 2006