logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.07.22 2016고정124
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who operates an Internet computer game facility business in the name of “CPC room” in the case of Pakistan.

No one shall provide game water for distribution or use, or display or store for such purposes, the contents different from the rating classified by the Game Water Management Committee.

In the event that there is a limit on loss of game money in the “class game(s)” and the game money exceeds KRW 100,000 per day of the sales game money, the rating was classified to make it impossible to connect the game for 24 hours based on the relevant time.

Nevertheless, from July 25, 2015 to July 26, 2015, the Defendant’s business establishment “CPC room” from July 25, 2015.

In addition, by installing five computers and providing an unspecified customer with “a roof game(s)”, the game was continuously used by the Game Water Management Committee in a way that the game continued to run, even if the amount of loss exceeds KRW 100,000 (1 billion) after the game commenced, the game was provided to the unspecified majority with contents different from the rating classification by the game water management committee.

2. That the Defendant did not know that the instant game water was a game product with a content different from the original rating.

There is a change.

As to whether the defendant was aware that the game material provided at the time of the instant case was a game material that was opened or altered, it is not sufficient to recognize the game material only by the public health room, witness D’s statement or on-site photographs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. As such, the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Defendant cannot obtain consent to the public announcement of the judgment of innocence due to his/her absence on the sentencing date. Thus, the public announcement of the judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2)

arrow