logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.10.25 2013노1620
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant engaged in the game and gambling business for several years, including the fact that he/she had been punished several times due to the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act. Around December 14, 2012, the Game Rating Board posted the scheduled fact on the website that the decision to revoke the rating classification of the instant “ Han River” game (hereinafter “instant game product”) was planned, and thereafter posted the notice in the Official Gazette, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that the rating classification of the instant game product was revoked.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no evidence that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the rating classification was revoked on the game product of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant purchased 20,000 won of the instant game product from a person with no personal knowledge in the vicinity of the Young Military Station around December 20, 2012. At the time of purchase, the rating classification of the instant game product was normally maintained. ② However, on January 9, 2013, the Game Rating Board issued a decision to revoke the rating with respect to the instant game product on January 18, 2013, and posted the contents of the decision in the Official Gazette on January 18, 2013. The Defendant was the first day after the commencement of business. ③ On the other hand, even if the notice of revocation on the rating classification of the instant game product was posted on the game product’s website of the Game Rating Committee on December 14, 2012, there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant was aware of such content, and even if so, at the time of normal distribution or business distribution of the instant game product.

arrow