logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.08.22 2013노129
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반등
Text

The judgment of the first instance and the second instance are reversed, respectively.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

seizure.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the first instance judgment, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he was in violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act (No. 201Dadan3826), and the Defendant was aware that he was to install and operate a game machine rated by P and lent only the name of the business owner, and that the P was to provide it to customers by installing a modified game machine.

B) There was a fact that the Defendant had been at the site of this case with regard to the fact that each dangerous article of this case, and the fact that the dangerous article of this case had been carried, and the dangerous article of hand-on property damage (201No. 4666), but the Defendant used the victim AC, AY, AZ, AZ, and BA due to the open-end network, etc., and attempted to flee, and did not cause any injury or damage to the victim. Nevertheless, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of all of the dangerous article of this case and the fact that the dangerous article of this case had been carried and the dangerous article of this case were destroyed and damaged. The first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts that affected the judgment, and thus, the sentencing of the lower court (one year and eight months and confiscation) of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below 1) erroneous determination of facts (as to intimidation to carry dangerous goods of this case), the defendant merely sculed the head of the defendant by beer disease and broken it, and did not threaten the victim by carrying dangerous goods, such as attempted to scule the vessels of the victim K due to a sculing of a shoulder, and the second court found the defendant guilty of intimidation to carry dangerous goods of this case. The court below's judgment of the court below 2 is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second court's judgment of the court below's decision of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) of the second court's sentencing (one

2. mistake of facts;

arrow