logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.08.07 2015노327
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the contents of the instant CD and the statements by K and N, which are the customers of the game room operated by the Defendants (hereinafter “instant game room”), the members of the instant group card issued by the game room were traded in cash between customers, and the Defendants, even though they were aware of the fact, neglected to engage in speculative acts, thereby inducing or encouraging them to engage in speculative acts.

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined the admissibility of the recording CD No. 26 of the evidence list No. 1 of the I with respect to the admissibility of the recording CD, on the premise that the “recording CD” was inadmissible, and used as impeachment evidence against the statement in the I’s original court (as in the evidence decision column of the evidence list, entry of the recording CD as “nuclear evidence” in the remarks column in the remarks column would be construed as this meaning). If the Defendants did not agree to use the recording CD as evidence, it should be recognized that the contents of the recording in the CD were recorded as stated by I by the statement in the I’s original court court at the I’s original court (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6323, Feb. 18, 2005). However, the lower court’s original court made a reply to the purport that the contents of the CD were not aware of the questioning’s intent, and rather made a statement inconsistent with the contents of the recording, and thus, it cannot be admissible as evidence as to the facts requiring the recording.

B. The summary of the facts charged 1 as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is as follows: (a) Defendant A operates the game room with the trade name “F Gameland”, and (b) Defendant B is an employee to reuse the points obtained through the game.

arrow