logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가합1277
손해배상(기) 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 9, 2011, the Plaintiff established a 50 game machine (hereinafter “instant game machine”) under the name of “Haak-si, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si” in the underground floor, and started the game room business (hereinafter “instant game room”) with the trade name of “C”.

(Substantially, the plaintiff's husband D). B

On October 25, 201, the Changwon Police Station arrested Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s husband D as a flagrant offender pursuant to Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds of suspicion of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and released the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s husband D on the grounds that there was no risk of escape and destruction of evidence at around 19:50 on the same day.

C. In addition, around October 17:35, 201, the Changwon Police Station seized the instant game machine in the instant game room in accordance with Article 216(1)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. On October 26, 2011, the Changwon District Court issued an ex post facto warrant in accordance with Article 217(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. After that, on April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband D applied for temporary return of the game machine of this case to the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office, but the prosecutor in charge of the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office dismissed the application for temporary return on the ground that it is under investigation.

On April 24, 2012, the public prosecutor in charge of the Changwon District Public Prosecutor's Office rendered a decision suspending prosecution on the ground that the plaintiff's operation of the game room in this case against the plaintiff was D, which is the husband of the plaintiff, and that there was no suspicion of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act (Evidence of Evidence). ② The plaintiff's husband D was different from the contents of the game period in this case. ② The plaintiff's husband D was not aware of the fact that the game period in this case was different from the contents of the rating.

【Unsatisfied facts, Gap's 5 through 7, 13 through 16, including branch numbers.

arrow