logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.03.14 2012노5231
게임산업진흥에관한법률위반등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) received a request from D to engage in lawful game room business, and received a request from D to engage in physical coloring, and introduced H to D and G, and delivered H’s investment money on behalf of H, and there was no conspiracy or participation in the game room business of this case.

In addition, although the Defendant did not borrow money from H, it is true that he was subject to intimidation and paid the money frighten by intimidation. Thus, there is no fact that the Defendant made a false accusation by pointing out false facts.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, there is an error of mistake in the part that recognized the defendant's violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act and theless crime.

(2) The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s lawful adoption of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence examined: (a) the Defendant received KRW 150 million from H on or following the date or following the date of deposit from H to its own account and immediately withdrawn it as investment funds in the game room business; and (b) the withdrawal was made immediately before H’s departure, it does not seem that the Defendant merely delivered the money on behalf of H that he left the country; (c) the Defendant has consistently discussed the method of raising investment funds in the game room business of this case or the method of operating the game room; and (d) even before receiving money from H, the Defendant was in a position to participate in the decision-making on the financing and operation of the game room business of this case; and (c) the Defendant was in a position to regulate the illegal game room business, along with the Plaintiff’s identity orD, G, etc., and the process of pursuing the investors or joint operators.

arrow