logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.07.22 2016노1272
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely provided a third party's "Tacheon" game product classified as the rating of the Game Water Management Committee without opening or altering the game product, which is different from the game product originally classified as the class, i.e.,, the game product of which a dog or altered game product was not provided, and is not a household product.

Even if the defendant did not know that he was a game product altered or opened.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of KRW 3 million and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: ① The instant game products are carried out by roll frecinite games on the basis of “Trecover site” unlike the content classified as rating; the point charging procedure has been completed; (i) the title and content of the instant game products are changed to a game with a horse racing or horse racing operation system similar to the horse racing industry through entirely different betting and distribution; and (ii) the same is the game products that imitate the horse, as such, Article 2 subparag. 1(a) and subparag. 1-2(c) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry.

As a speculative game product provided for in the following items, it cannot be included in the concept of “game product” as provided for in the same Act, and thus constitutes a game product that cannot be classified by itself. ③ The Defendant under investigation into the suspicion of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act in relation to the provision to users of “Tang,” which is similar to the game product of this case, (3) the Defendant was aware that the game product of this case is likely to constitute an opened or altered game product, and (4) the users of the game product of this case, unlike the general game product, have points used in the game product of this case.

arrow