Defendant 1 and one other

A public-private partnership (prosecution), a private-private partnership, or a delay in removal;

Law Firm Law Firm (LO) and 3 others such as Yellow Sea, Attorneys Yellow-ryon et al.

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

Ⅰ. The facts charged in this case

On March 3, 2007, Nonindicted Co. 1 applied for a rating classification of “Stop” game in the Game Rating Board, and operated the game by entering the method of charging the contents of the game in free game money payment and automatic payment method for the game money following the purchase of Ababa. On April 11 of that year, it entered it in 300,000,000 won, including the function of gifting the monthly purchase limit per resident number, and then posted it in ○○○○ (rating number: classification number omitted) and operated the game after being posted on the above ○○○○, and operated the game by entering the same charging method as the above “Stop” game and the monthly purchase limit per resident number as indicated in the attached table (No. 11 of daily table, “△△△△△△△△△” game and “Sab” in 12 of the same year from around 2013 to around 213, 201.

In the case of a game product which imitates a speculative act such as a stop or stop, if the user pays the price for the game product, and if the user can acquire the game money to the extent that it is not possible to regard it as a temporary entertainment, then the user can purchase the game money to the extent that it can not be seen as a temporary entertainment, and then exchange it through money exchange in the vicinity of ○○○○○, thereby causing property loss or profit depending on the game plaque, and the game will be gambling or speculative act. Therefore, the filling limit per person of the online game is the most important game in judging the speculative nature of the game product, not just the operation method of the game product, so the filling limit stated in the rating limit shall be observed, and if it is violated, it constitutes a violation of the rating limit.

1. Defendant 1

From June 7, 2011, the Defendant served as the representative of the game business sector of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. from around June 7, 201, and operated the game products indicated in the above attached Table as a person who has overall control over the operation of the game at the ○○○○ evasion, and is obligated to manage and supervise the game products in accordance with the contents of the game products as at the time of classification, and to prevent the users from gambling and performing other speculative acts by using the game products.

Nevertheless, in the operation of the game products listed in the separate sheet by Defendant 2’s employees in the game business sector, when the user uses the function of gifting, the Defendant may charge unlimited capital exceeding 300,000 won per month specified at the time of applying for rating classification. The Defendant operated the game products without neglecting to make the user charge up for the game money up to KRW 450,00 per person per filled up up to KRW 4,50 (one million in cash). The Defendant’s subsidiary company, as the Defendant 2 corporation, operated the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (the subsidiaries of the Defendant 2 corporation), while operating the PA provision contract concluded with the Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., which was concluded with the Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., and the ○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., purchased the content of the PA, such as the cPA, from around 2015 to the extent of purchasing the purchase price of the ○○○○.

As a result, from June 7, 201 to March 2012, the Defendant provided game products with contents different from the classified game products by allowing users to freely acquire capital and money through the CPA in violation of the rating limit in the operation of the game products listed in the attached table from around June 7, 2011.

2. Defendant 2 (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)

As the executive director of the defendant company, the defendant company held office as the representative of the game business sector, and the above defendant 1 provided game products with contents different from those of the game products as classified in the above Paragraph 1 in relation to his duties.

Ⅱ. Determination

1. Details of prosecution by the prosecution and the contents of the prosecution by the Defendants

(a) Details of prosecution by a prosecutor;

A prosecutor filed a prosecution for the instant case where the monthly purchase limit per resident registration number is an important game product in determining the speculative nature of each game product through the charging method of game money, and the Defendants were allowed to charge capital up to the unlimited limit exceeding 300,000 won per person’s limit of the monthly charging amount set at the time of applying for rating through the futures function in the operation of each of the instant game products, and neglected to charge up to 45,00 trillion won per person’s game money (one million won in cash) so as to make it possible to charge for the game money, which is in violation of the rating limit, and provided a game product for use different from the rated game product.

B. Details of the Defendants’ lawsuit

In regard to this, even if the Defendants’ limit on the filling of game capital or game money is not “the contents of the game product,” and it was exceptionally excessive, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have provided game products with contents different from the contents of the game product rated in the operation of the game product, and therefore, there is no crime against the Defendants in this case.

2. Determination

A. The issues of the instant case

The key issue in this case is whether the restriction of “monthly purchase limit” or “competing limit” can be seen as the content of game products.

(b) basic facts;

(1) The distinction between capital and game money

The online game companies that provide the web game such as stop and stop games operate their respective online game evasion sites by distinguishing between game capital and stop. In light of the progress of the game, first of all, game users have charged “gin”, which is a virtual cash, which is used for the entire criminal purpose of the pertinent game site by using means of payment such as cash, etc., and then up to two stages of purchasing the game tools at a specific game operated by the pertinent site with a stop as a criminal use for the purchase. The Defendant company also refers to “○○○○○○○ Game Stsh,” which also refers to the above Capitals at the s to “○○○○○ Stsh,” and the game users can purchase items or items of various games, including the web game that the Defendant company directly purchased, and can provide them from the stop and other music, a film, a cartoon, etc.

(2) Setting and operating a self-regulatory limit of filling in the game industry;

The Internet game industry has been operating from around 2004 to 300,000 won a month by limiting the filling limit per capita in the self-regulation form. On November 19, 2009, the Internet game industry decided to adjust it in the direction of increasing the maximum amount as a regulatory reform measure through the "Joint Meeting of Related Ministers" held as the Prime Minister's presence on November 19, 2009. Accordingly, under the autonomous consultation between the Game Rating Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Game") and the Game Industry Association, the web game will be maintained at KRW 30,00 per month, while the web game will be maintained at KRW 50,000 per month, the maximum filling limit of general game products would be raised to KRW 50,000 per month.

C. The meaning of “the contents of game products”

(1) Terms and conditions of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Act”)

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Game Act defines a game product as “a video product produced so that it can play a game by using data processing technology, such as computer programs, or a device and device produced for the main purpose of using such video product, or for the purpose of using such video product, which is incidental thereto (Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Game Act).” If the content of a game product is based on the ordinary definition of “content”, the contents refer to the message or expression contained in the medium, and thus, the contents of the game product must be deemed to refer to the message or expression in which the game product itself owns. Ultimately, what is the contents of the game product under the Game Act should be determined in relation to the rating system, and therefore, the meaning of the rating classification should be examined.

(2) The rating classification system under the Game Act

The purpose of the game classification system under the Game Act is to verify and classify game products in line with the age rating of users under the Game Act, and to limit the use of game products that do not conform to the rating (Article 21 of the Game Act). It is that the peculiar contents of the rating system under the Game Industry Act are to confirm whether the game products in question are speculative game products at the time of classifying them to the top class (Article 16(2)3 and Article 22(2) of the Game Act). The purpose of the rating system is to provide information on the game to users of the game in question and to restrict the use of the game products that do not conform to the rating (Article 21 of the Game Act). It is that the right to refuse the rating is to confirm whether the game products in question are speculative game products at the time of classifying them (Article 16(2)3 and Article 22(2)

The subject of the rating of a game product is “the contents of the game product” (Article 21 of the Game Act). According to Article 6 of the Round Review Regulations (Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Act), which is the subordinate regulation enacted pursuant to the Game Act and subordinate regulations, the principle of rating in the rating of the game product is complied with. The first principle states that “Titain-centered-centered shall not be the subject of the rating in respect of the part other than the content: 1.” In addition, Article 7 of the above Review Regulations stipulates that the rating shall be determined in a comprehensive consideration of the maternity, violence, crime, drugs, and sound language, speculative acts, etc., and Article 14 provides detailed standards for the maternity of a game product, such as speculative acts, etc. (Article 5 note).

(3) The meaning of the contents of the game

In full view of the definition and classification of game products under the Game Act, in particular, web game under the Game Act is a game for the gambling company. In the end, the contents of the game itself, namely, the contents of the game, namely, the contents of the game, or the contents or methods of operation directly related to video works, which are expressed as video works, or the contents or methods of operation directly related to video works, which are expressed as video works according to the contents of the game, cannot be seen as “the contents of the game itself,” or the contents or methods of operation directly related to video works,” if the contents of the game are defined as “the contents of the game.”

D. As to whether a “monthly purchase limit” constitutes the content of a game product

(1) As to the meaning of “monthly purchase limit” on the game content information technology

In order for a game company to receive a rating from the Game Rating Board for the game product, the game company shall prepare and submit a “written statement of the contents of the game product” prepared in advance by the said Committee. The content information technology of the game product defines the definition of the monthly purchase limit as “the limit of the monthly purchase” as “the limit of the monthly purchase” (including both the amount directly purchased and the gift amount that he/she purchases) between the resident registration number per month by means of cash, merchandise coupon, etc.” (Evidence No. 164 pages of evidence record).

In the event that a prosecutor operates a game product in violation of the provision of this "monthly purchase limit", he/she raised a prosecution against this case by asserting that it is an act of providing game products that are different from the rated ones as an act subject to criminal punishment. In the end, the meaning of the monthly purchase limit is at issue as to whether the crime of violation of rating is imposed according to the meaning of "monthly purchase limit" and therefore, the meaning of the monthly purchase limit should be strictly interpreted in light of the language and text of the principle of no crime without law. However, this definition provides that "the limit of virtual cash can be purchased by means of cash, merchandise coupons, etc." and it is obvious that it means the limit of the filling of capital, and it is interpreted that it does not include the limit of filling of game money. The reason is that the above provision provides that a person directly purchases game money by means of payment, such as cash, merchandise coupon, etc., and that it is not possible to directly purchase game money by cash

(2) Whether monthly purchase limit is the content of the game product

In this case, the limit of filling for capital is a game operating method commonly applied to all the games in the game evasion operated by the defendant company, which is the game business operator. The limit of filling for "the grant of a resident registration number is not the limit of filling for the game money which can use specific game products, but the limit of purchasing for the purpose of use, and such limit of filling for capital is the front phase of using the game products, and for example, it is only the phase where a person gambling prepares money in preparation for money in preparation for the use of gambling funds prior to the use of gambling funds. Thus, it cannot be deemed that he started gambling with such a charging state.

Therefore, the regulation of the game business operator in the operation method of the game itself is subject to the direct act of input of money by the game user ("betting"), and in particular, the limit of purchasing or charging the game capital or the game money ("limit on the filling of game money") is the previous stage of the input act outside the game system, and it cannot be deemed as the direct act of input of the game money ("betting"). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the limit on the filling of game money (the same applies to the limit on the filling of game money) is included in the influent regulation in the operation method of the game, so it cannot be deemed that such a limit on the filling of money constitutes "the contents of the game itself" or "the operation method directly related to the contents of the game product".

(3) Relationship between monthly purchase ceiling and speculative judgment

A prosecutor asserts that a violation of monthly purchase limit may eventually result in a violation of the standards of speculative nature under the rating classification standards. However, for the following reasons, the upper limit of the filling limit (the same shall apply to money filling limit) is not related to gambling. Article 2 Subparag. 1-2 of the Game Act provides that "speculative game products refers to game products, etc., the contents of which are betting or distribution, and which make property profits or losses according to the result thereof." In this regard, the Supreme Court determines whether a result obtained from a game can be realized into money within the game system, i.e., whether it can be realized into money within the game system (see Supreme Court Decision 76Nu123, Nov. 9, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8245, May 14, 2004).

The reason why web game is not a speculative game is because there is no possibility of exchanging the outcome of a game in money within the game system, not because of the fact that the limit of filling (or money filling) is limited to 300,000 won per month and the game is provided for the use of the game. Therefore, even if it is impossible to exchange the game in the game system, even if it violates the filling limit in a case where it is impossible to exchange the game, it cannot be said that the game is made late after the speculation. The reason is that the contents of the game are not different because it is in violation of the filling limit in light of the definition of the contents of the game as above.

In other words, according to the "the speculative nature of online betting game" item in the contents of the game contents information technology, the monthly limit on the game is not deemed the contents of the game. In other words, according to the "the speculative nature of online betting game" item in the game contents information technology, the existence of gambling in the case of online betting game does not exist: ① score obtained as a result of the winning in the game or where it is possible to be commercialized by the game money; ② there is no case where points or game money used in the game progress are transferred directly or indirectly or through the distribution process; ③ it is possible to use the game money free of charge; ④ it is possible to use the game in a normal amount without charge; ④ it is possible to use the game money free of charge; ⑤ it is stated that there is no provision to a specific person (specific card and specific means of settlement) and there is no reference to the monthly limit on the purchase.

Furthermore, the monthly purchase limit is written only with the items, such as whether to acquire the previous rating, online connection, site address, gold policy, and method of distribution, etc. under the title of “information on the contents of the online betting game” rather than “3. The contents of the game product,” and if the monthly purchase limit is a very important item in relation to the judgment of speculation, it should have naturally been included in the item of the “online betting game,” and it cannot be deemed that it is not included in the contents of the gambling of the game.

E. Sub-committee

As seen above, the monthly limit of purchase refers to the “fash filling limit,” and the monthly limit of purchase shall not be deemed to include the contents of game products that can be defined as “the input of goods, such as money, (e.g., e., g., e., g., e., e., e., e., s.g., e., e., e., e., s.g., e., e., e., e., s.g., e., e., e., s.g., e., s., e., s.g., e., s., e., s.g., e., s., e., s.g. or e., s., e., s.g., e., s.s.).

III. Conclusion

Therefore, since each of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants is not a crime or there is no proof of a crime, the Defendants shall be acquitted by applying the former and latter parts of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

[Attachment]

Judges Yoon Tae-sik

1) In this case, the method of directly shocking the game money to enable a game user to purchase the game money directly used for a specific game is called the “direct shocking method” of the game money, and the method of receiving the game money by purchasing an abac or item of a specific game and together with the game money used in the specific game is called the “indirect shock method” of the game money. However, in a case where the current rating method is used, the game money is classified as a speculative game and its operation method cannot be provided for use.

Note 2) In other words, it is a criminal use as a higher concept than the game money, which may be charged with the game money and may be used in other places.

3) Accordingly, from December 2009 to December 3009, the Defendants had operated the games by setting the maximum amount of KRW 00,000 per month, while maintaining the monthly limit of KRW 300,000 per month of the web game.

4) At the time, there was no explicit provision on the limitation of the filling limit at the time of consultation and decision on the adjustment of the above filling limit between the street table and the Internet game industry.

5) Article 18 Subparag. 1 of the Regulation on the Determination of the Rating Board provides that "if a fee is likely to engage in a game beyond the normal scope, it may be confirmed as a speculative game and refused to rate it may be denied." This may not be recognized for the following reasons. In other words, monthly purchase limit is an issue as to how a user can possess a capital (or money) at one month, and the usage fee is different in terms of the amount of money to be paid by a user as a price for using a specific game (i.e., input or betting). Therefore, in the case of a web game, the above usage fee refers to the amount of money or betting amount to be paid for using the game, and in the case of an Asian game, it shall be deemed that the amount of input in the game machine is referred to as the amount of input in the game machine, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that it is a direct regulation of the above provision.

Note 6) If the definition of the above monthly purchase limit is intended to be defined in the sense that the said monthly purchase limit includes a monthly game money filling limit, it would clearly indicate that such meaning would clearly appear, and it would have been clearly stated in the above document.

7) On July 28, 2011, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism sent to the relevant Internet game companies on July 28, 201, the phrase “request for cooperation in the improvement of the method of the operation of the web game software” can be confirmed that the meaning of “monthly purchase limit” is used as a filling method for the game money, and even through the fact that the said request is made by both parties, the meaning of “monthly purchase limit” is ordinarily used as a filling method.

8) In the above 2003Do8245 decision, the Supreme Court held that "the defendant installed one of the instant amusement machines in his operation, and the method of using the instant amusement machine is the point given by the user when he puts the 100 foot paper, and it can be known that he gains or loses the points in accordance with the arrangement of the picture or number appearing on the screen when he takes a 100 foot paper, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant paid money or exchange gifts to the user of the instant amusement machine according to the points he obtained, and if there is no circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant amusement machine falls under "a machine or apparatus that is likely to cause gambling" as provided in the above provision.

9) In other words, even though the Game Rating Board satisfied all different criteria, including the price not to exchange the result of the rating examination, if the limit of filling exceeds 300,000 won per month, the game product concerned may not be subject to a disposition of refusal of rating on the ground of the violation of the limit of filling.