Game Industry Act and Speculative Acts Regulation Act violations

Substantive examination of detention warrant

Investigating agencies are required to investigate without detention as a general rule, but they may apply to the court for a detention warrant when the suspect is reasonably suspected, lacks a fixed residence, or there is a risk of evidence destruction or flight.

Upon receiving the application for a detention warrant, the court summons the suspect and conducts an interrogation, during which it considers whether the grounds for detention listed above exist, as well as the gravity of the offence, the risk of reoffending, and the risk of harm to the victim and important witnesses, and then decides whether to issue the warrant.

If the warrant is issued, the suspect is immediately detained, and the police may detain for up to 10 days and the prosecution for up to 20 days.

Recently, attorney Joo Youngjae represented a suspect for whom a detention warrant was sought on charges of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act and the Special Act on Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, and we will present the case where the warrant request was refused.

Facts of the case

The police alleged that the client (suspect) operated a PC game room from around August 2020 to around November 2020, exchanging game money earned by customers into cash after deducting a 10% commission, and allowing customers to engage in speculative acts where gains or losses were determined by chance through game items, thereby causing them property loss or gain. Additionally, the police alleged that the client provided unrated game products that were not rated by the Game Rating and Administration Committee, and engaged in speculative acts as a business using speculative gaming devices without obtaining permission from the competent provincial police agency, and applied for a detention warrant for the client on charges of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act and the Special Act on Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts.

Assistance of attorney Joo Youngjae

Attorney Joo Youngjae argued that although the client admitted most of the charges, the client had a fixed residence and lived with family, so there was little risk of flight; that the client had only performed menial tasks such as guiding customers, not currency exchange, planning, or promotion; and that although the client had made false statements due to the instigation of accomplices, he now showed a willingness to cooperate actively with the investigation, so detention was not necessary.

The court's decision

The court accepted the arguments of attorney Joo Youngjae and refused the police's application for a detention warrant, so the client was immediately released and will be investigated without detention.