Defendant 1 and five others

Bohio Hahio

Attorney Park Jong-ho et al.

Defendant 1 (Defendant 2 of the Supreme Court and the appellate court’s judgment), Defendant 2 (Defendant 8 of the appellate court’s judgment), Defendant 3 (Defendant 9 of the appellate court’s judgment), Defendant 4 (Defendant 3 of the appellate court and the appellate court’s judgment), and Defendant 5 (Defendant 10 of the appellate court’s judgment) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, by fine for seven million won, respectively.

When Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

However, with respect to defendants 1 and 2, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Probation shall be given to Defendant 2 for one year and community service work shall be ordered for 80 hours.

The number of 40 feet game machines seized, 85, 85, 000 won per day, 1, 47, 47, 000 won per day, 15, 560 gift chips (Nos. 1 through 7, 2010, 1, 2000 won per day) shall be forfeited from Defendant 1.

No one shall provide game products, the contents of which are different from those deliberated by the Game Rating Board, and allow him/her to perform speculative acts by using game products, and exchange results obtained through the use of game products.

1. Defendant 2

A. Crimes from April 15, 2010 to May 3, 2010

Nevertheless, Defendant 2 shared with Defendant 1, Nonindicted 30 (Defendant 3 of the lower judgment), Nonindicted 29, Defendant 4, and Nonindicted 4, from April 15, 2010 to May 3, 201, in the Incheon (hereinafter “3 omitted), Defendant 2, Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 4 purchased game instruments and fixtures by investing 10,00 won each in 10 million won, and Nonindicted 30 is in charge of money exchange work, cleaning and entertainment of games and customers, and Defendant 4 is different from the rating of the Game Rating Board. If the user gains 1,00 won from the game without any manipulation, and the user gains 1,000 won from the game in cash exchange to 1,000 won, and then gains 5,000 won from the game to the above 1,000 won, and then gains 1,000 won from the game to the above 1,0000 won, without any change of the user’s ability to use the game.

B. Crimes from July 1, 2010 to July 16, 2010

Defendant 2 jointly with Defendant 1, the Supreme Court, and Nonindicted 4 in the appellate judgment, and jointly with Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 4, from July 1, 2010 to June 16, 2010, in the game room with no trade name in Incheon (hereinafter referred to as “5 omitted) and the second floor, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4 purchased game instruments and equipments by investing 10 million won each, and Defendant 2 was in charge of money exchange, and Defendant 4 of the Supreme Court and the appellate court’s judgment were in charge of money exchange, and Defendant 2 was in charge of money cleaning, and the game room cleaning and the rest of customers. Defendant 4 of the said judgment installed 40 game machine in the open and altered sea, as described in the above paragraph A., by installing 40 games using game products with contents different from the rating of customers, and exchanged premiums obtained by using game products in cash, and sold KRW 2.5 million per day’s net profits per day.

2. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Crimes from July 24, 2010 to July 27, 2010)

The Defendants jointly with Nonindicted 31 and 4, and from July 24, 2010 to July 27, 2010, the Incheon (hereinafter omitted) and Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 4 purchased game instruments and fixtures by investing 10,000 won each in the amount of KRW 10,000,000. Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, 5, and Nonindicted 31, respectively, take charge of the activities of cleaning the game room and checking customers through closed-circuit camera installed outside the game room; and Defendant 3, Defendant 4, 5, and Nonindicted 31, jointly with Nonindicted 31 and Nonindicted 4, the contents of which were opened and altered, set up 40 means as stated in Article 1. A. of the same month, the Defendants made them perform speculative activities using game products different from those classified as customers; made profits by exchanging the game products with the game products in cash and made profits of KRW 1,50,000,00.

3. Defendant 6

Around October 209, the Defendant, a manager of the Incheon Building (hereinafter referred to as the “5 omitted), in which the game site prescribed in paragraph (2) was operated, was well aware that Defendant 1, etc. wanted to operate a speculative game site on the second floor of the above building, and leased the second floor of the above building to Defendant 1, and even though he was well aware that the above game site was regulating the number of vehicles, Defendant 1, etc., provided that he leased the second floor of the above building to Defendant 1 until July 27, 2010, thereby aiding and abetting Defendant 1, etc. to commit the crime of operating the speculative game site.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Photographss and photographs relating to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu game site at the time of control;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Articles 44(1)1 and 28 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Promotion of respective Game Industry; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision for the use of game products using game products); Articles 44(1)2 and 32(1)7 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 45 subparag. 4 and 32(1)2 of the Act on the Promotion of respective Game Industry; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision for the use of game products different from those classified)

(b) Defendant 6: Articles 44(1)1 and 28 subparag. 2 of the respective Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (aided and abetting to perform speculative acts by using game products), Articles 44(1)2 and 32(1)7 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (aided and abetting to exchange game outcomes), Articles 45 subparag. 4 and 32(1)2 of the respective Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (aided and abetting to use and provide game products different from those classified)

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1 and 2: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor

B. Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6: Selection of a fine

1. Mitigation and mitigation (Defendant 6): Articles 32 (2) and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act;

1. Concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention in a workhouse (defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6): Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution (defendant 1 and 2): Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order (Defendant 2): Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Confiscation (Defendant 1): Article 44 (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act;

Although the Defendants were presumed to have earned considerable profits from the operation of the above game room, the amount of additional collection is equivalent to confiscation, which is a kind of punishment under Article 41 of the Criminal Act, and in order to order the Defendants to collect additional collection, there should be strict proof on the amount of revenue. However, in this case where the Defendants dispute over the ratio of shares invested in the above game room and the amount of profit distributed to the above game room, the prosecutor's office lacks objective data to support the amount of revenue in addition to the amount of total estimated revenue, so the amount of additional collection for the Defendants should not be ordered.

The Defendants’ crime of this case is a serious crime with great harm by undermining the citizens’ awareness of sound labor and encouraging speculation in society, and shall be determined by taking into account the Defendants’ involvement in and role in the commission of the commission of the crime. However, Defendant 1 is to determine a separate punishment in this court’s case, including additional crimes like this case, in light of the circumstances, such as violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

Judges Park Jae-young (Presiding Judge)