logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.11.11 2016노1437
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of ten months.

evidence of seizure.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant B: imprisonment of 10 months, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant C: imprisonment of 7 months, additional collection, Defendant D: imprisonment of 10 months, additional collection, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence imposed on the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that "goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime" as objects of confiscation, and among them, "goods provided for an act of crime" refers to goods which are used directly or actually contributed to an act of crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075 Decided September 14, 2006). B.

According to the records, among the goods confiscated from Defendant B, the court below is sufficiently recognized that the defendants offered or intended to offer Samsung mobile phone (verification 1, SHV-E470S), Samsung mobile phone (Balu, SM-G920S), one unit of Samsung mobile phone (Evidence 2), Samsung mobile phone (White, SM-G720 NO), one unit of Samsung mobile phone (Evidence 9), A5 gold color, SM-A500 LG 1 (Evidence 13), LG G4 verification color, LG-F500 LG-50 LG 14 (Evidence 14), and the remaining goods are the goods which the defendants had offered or intended to offer to the criminal act of this case. However, the smartphone 3 units of smartphone are not only those of employees of the game of this case who have already contributed to the investigation and analysis of digital evidence, but also those of the defendant's personal phone 14 and 14, but also those of the defendant's personal phone 14 and 5 were not those of this case.

Although the defendants used the above smartphones to communicate each other, and the above smartphones contain photographs showing the account books and settlement details of the game room, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above circumstances alone are the same.

arrow