logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.06.10 2015노1442
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) The Defendant did not encourage or impliedly encourage customers in the F Gameland to sell free of charge vouchers to other customers, as set forth in Article 2(a) of the facts charged.

(2) The Defendant did not exchange free vouchers with G, a customer in F Gameland, as stated in Article 2-B of the facts charged.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order, the confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Article 28 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, which provides that “A game water-related business entity shall comply with the following matters,” and Article 28 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, which provides that “No one shall cause others to gamble or perform other speculative acts by using game water, or neglect to do so,” and Article 44(1)1 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry provides that a person who violates Article 28 subparag. 2 of the aforesaid Act shall be punished.

The term "speculative act" under the above provision means an act of determining a gain and loss by an incidental method and causing property loss or profit to a person who committed a speculative act stipulated under the above provision. Thus, in order to constitute a speculative act as stipulated under the above provision, a certain pecuniary gain or loss may be incurred. If a certificate issued by a game providing business operator to a game user using the game classified as the result of the relevant game has property value that can be distributed among the game users, such as securities, it shall be deemed as such property interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9173, Sept. 26, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant in F Gameland operated by himself.

arrow