beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
(a) A person who intends to run a juvenile game providing business in violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act shall register with the competent authority;
Nevertheless, the defendant did not register with the competent authorities, and from January 2017, the same year from the beginning of the same year.
3. From 20th to 20th to 30th to 20th to 30th to 20th to 20th to 20th to 3th to 3th to 3th to 3th to 4th to 10th to 3th to 4th to 4th to 5th to 5th to 5th to 5th to 5th to
(b) No person who violates the Educational Environment Protection Act shall operate a game providing business in a relative protection zone, among educational environment protection zones, exceeding 50 meters in a straight line from the entrance of a school, and up to 200 meters in a straight line from the school boundary, etc., except where the superintendent of education or the person delegated by the superintendent of education deems that such zone does not adversely affect learning and educational environment through
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not undergo the deliberation of the Local Committee, but run the game providing business as described in paragraph 1-A, prior to the discount set forth in paragraph 1-A, at approximately approximately approximately 194.94 meters from the boundary of the “E” elementary school at the same time as Paragraph 1-A.
2. According to the records of this case, on August 24, 2017, the defendant made a false statement for F as stated in the facts charged, on the ground that he did not establish and operate one unit of the "frick" game as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and on the ground that he did not have any fact that he had installed and operated it, the defendant also made a false statement for F, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of avoid crime, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 1, 2017. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone by the defendant that the defendant installed and operated one unit of the "frick" game as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.