logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.30 2018고단2194
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is an employee of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government "G Gameland" in the operation of Gangseo-gu, which is a manager in charge of night, and Defendant B is an employee of the above game site, who takes charge of exchanging points obtained by customers through the game in cash in the above game site.

Defendant

A B B B B B between March 22, 2018 and March 27, 2018, by setting up 70 points for “long-term shoulder game” game in the above game, the points obtained through the game by having customers put in the game machine and play the game in advance and let them do so, and then, when a customer requests the above point exchange, the Defendant B demanded the money exchange point by telephone to the Defendant B, who was waiting in the vicinity of the above game site, and the Defendant B received the Defendant’s telephone immediately after ascertaining the points accumulated in the above IC card through the card terminal, and exchanged in cash after deducting 10% fees.

As a result, Defendant A was engaged in business from March 22, 2018 to Defendant B from March 20, 2018, and from March 20, 2018 to March 27, 2018 to exchange tangible and intangible results acquired through the use of game water in collusion with Defendant F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants to the prosecution

1. Each protocol of seizure, each list of seizure, on-site photographs, certificate of registration of juvenile game providing business operator, each photograph, game instruments description, books, etc. [The defendants' defense counsel is an employee who participated in the crime of this case. Thus, the defendants cannot be punished as an accomplice even if they are punished as an aiding and abetting.

However, the Defendants worked as employees.

As long as it is directly involved in the act of exchange, the intention and practice of joint processing, which is a requirement for the establishment of joint principals.

arrow