logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2014.11.18 2014노390
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was classified in order to make it impossible to automatically discharge free gifts at a game machine even if there is an automatic system, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, even though the Defendant provided game products with contents different from the contents of rating by changing the contents to enable automatic discharge of free gifts using external storage devices, is erroneous in the

2. The subject of the rating classification provided by the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) is the contents of the game product or program itself, i.e., the contents of the game product that is not the game product or program license itself, and the contents of the game product content description attached thereto;

Therefore, the act of providing game products with contents different from the rating obtained” under Article 32(1)2 of the Game Industry Act includes not only the act of changing the contents of the application or the explanation attached thereto, but also the act of adding the important functions not indicated in the above application or explanation, but also the act of providing separate external organs, which is not likely to cause any change to the contents of the game products.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12 Decided May 29, 2014). The gist of the instant facts charged is that “The Defendant provided customers with game products different from the contents of the rating by allowing the game to be carried out on the external route using an external storage device different from the contents rated by the Game Rating Board in the course of operating the game site, thereby allowing the game to be carried out on the external route using the external storage device, irrespective of the user’s ability.”

However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the game of the defendant provided to customers.

arrow