logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.11 2019노351 (1)
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment below

The part of the confiscation against the defendant is reversed.

This Court was preserved for forfeiture in 2018.1351.

Reasons

1. Reasons for appeal (unfair form) is too unreasonable that the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant [3 million won in cases of fine, confiscation: No. 15 (Talgallon No. 8) and deposit claims for preservation for confiscation] imposed by the court below is too unreasonable;

Since the court below made an argument that it is improper to confiscate a mobile phone No. 15 on the date of trial after the lapse of the grounds for appeal, the defendant ex officio examined the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confiscated portion, and examined the remaining part of the grounds for appeal.

2. Ex officio determination on the part confiscated

A. The lower court cited Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry as a ground for forfeiture of the evidence No. 15 that was seized against the Defendant.

Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act provides that “The game products owned or occupied by a person who exchanged the result obtained through the use of game products, profits generated by such criminal acts, and property derived from such criminal proceeds shall be confiscated,” and Article 48(1)1 and 2 of the Criminal Act on voluntary confiscation provides that “the whole or part of the things provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts and the things obtained by such criminal acts may be confiscated.”

B. Subparagraph 15 of the judgment seized (Talgalgalgno No. 8, V, SM-N950N, serial number W) cannot be deemed as “game products, profits generated by such criminal act and property derived from such criminal proceeds” as a mobile phone seized by the Defendant while ordinarily using it, and cannot be deemed as “goods produced or obtained by such criminal act or by such criminal act”.

It is illegal for the court below to sentence forfeiture of the seized evidence No. 15 even though the requirements of forfeiture were not satisfied.

arrow