logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.24 2017고단4447
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for four months.

(2) the date of this judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A from May 27, 2017 to establish a single floor of the building located in Gwangju-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, a person who operates a game hall in the trade name of "D" after setting up 60 units of "Meat Game", and Defendant B is an employee in charge of exchange in the above game site.

1. No one shall engage in a business of exchanging, arranging exchange or repurchase intangible results obtained through the use of game water by the Defendants;

The Defendants, from May 27, 2017 to June 9, 2017, when customers who find their places in the said game room input money in the game machine and practice the game and lose or obtain points according to the result, enter the final score on the inside ICT card and receive an exchange request, and then take out the IC card in receipt of a request.

In connection with smartphones, the points were confirmed and exchanged to 2,250 won per point (10% deduction for money exchange commission). The average amount of 300 to 70 million won per day was exchanged.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to exchange scores obtained through the use of game water for business purposes.

2. The defendant A shall not provide information on the distribution or use of, or display or keep for, a game product with a content different from the rated one;

The Defendant, at the above date and at the same place, separated the internal IC card with which points are accumulated differently from the rating classification while operating the game room as above, and connected with smartphones, and installed 60 "meat game machine", which enables the elimination of points through the management program, and provided them for the use of many and unspecified customers.

As a result, the defendant provided game water different from the contents of the rating.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Entry of each statement in the police interrogation protocol against the Defendants and E

1. Statement made by the police with F.

arrow