Where a game room operator allows customers to play games using the same game machine at the same time and place, and provides merchandise coupons according to the result, the crime of violation of the former Act on the Promotion of Game Industry and the special Act on Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. is established, and such act is an ordinary competition relationship.

Article 40 of the Criminal Act, Article 28 Subparag. 2 and Article 44(1)1 of the former Game Industry Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8247 of Jan. 19, 2007), Article 2(1)2 and Article 30(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc.

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2007No3350 decided Nov. 1, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, from October 14, 2006 to December 22, 2006, the defendant established 30 units "ACE NE NAT" in a screen game room in violation of the standards for handling free gifts as determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Culture and Tourism from October 14, 2006 to December 22, 2006, and caused the speculation of customers by providing gift certificates according to the points. This is a single and continuous crime of providing free gifts corresponding to the name of the same crime. Since the benefit and protection of the law of the crime of this case is the social legal interest that prevents the promotion of speculation, and the personal legal interest of the other party to the provision of free gifts is recognized as the identity of the damage legal interest of each crime of this case, since it is not the direct protected legal interest, the court below's determination that the above crime of this case constitutes a crime of violation of Article 38 of the former Game Industry Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 2007, Dec. 4, 2007).

2. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s act of having the Defendant engage in speculative acts using the above game software constitutes a violation of Article 44(1)1 and Article 28 subparag. 2 of the former Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, and Article 30(1)1 and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc., and Article 30(1)1 and Article 2(1)2 of the same Act. The Defendant’s act of having the Defendant engage in speculative acts by using the same game software at the same time and at the same place, constitutes a mutually competitive relationship in cases where it is realized by one act of providing merchandise coupons for the result of the game using the same game machine.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to concurrent crimes, the number of crimes and the res judicata.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)