Game Industry Act and Speculative Acts Regulation Act violations
Police said the client helped run a PC games arcade that changed players' game money into cash for a 10 per cent fee, using machines that had never been rated or licensed. The client admitted most of it but said the part played was menial work such as showing customers in, not the cash exchange or the running of the place. Police applied for a warrant to detain the client.
PC games arcadeCash for game moneyUnrated machinesMinor role claimedDetention hearing
Detention warrant denied (구속영장 기각)Criminal
This page is a machine translation of the Korean original. Where the two differ, the Korean original prevails. Read the Korean original
Substantive review of the detention warrant
Investigating agencies work on the principle of investigation without detention, but where the suspicion against the suspect is substantial, where there is no fixed residence, or where there is a risk of destroying evidence or of flight, they may apply to the court for a warrant for pre-trial detention.
The court that receives the application for a detention warrant summons the suspect and holds a hearing, and decides whether to issue the warrant after comprehensively considering whether the grounds for detention listed above exist, the gravity of the offence, the risk of reoffending, and the risk of harm to the victim and important witnesses.
If the warrant is issued, the suspect is immediately detained, and the police may investigate in detention for up to 10 days and the prosecution for up to 20 days.
Facts
The police applied for a detention warrant against the client (the suspect) on charges of violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry and violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Amusement Businesses, alleging that from around August 2020 to around November 2020 the client operated a PC game room and ran a business of exchanging game money acquired by customers into cash after deducting a 10% fee, had customers engage in amusement acts in which gains and losses were determined by chance through the games so that they gained or lost property, provided for use games that had not been rated by the Game Rating and Administration Committee, and carried on the business of amusement acts using gambling devices without obtaining permission from the competent provincial police commissioner.
Lawyer Joo Youngjae's assistance
Lawyer Joo Youngjae argued that although the client admitted most of the charges, he had a clear residence and lived with family so there was little risk of flight, that he had merely done odd jobs such as guiding customers, not work such as exchanging money, planning or promotion, and that although he had made false statements at the urging of accomplices he had shown the will to cooperate actively in the investigation going forward, so there was little need for detention.
The court's decision
The court accepted lawyer Joo Youngjae's arguments and dismissed the police application for the warrant, and the client was immediately released and investigated without detention.
Before you read
The results shown here depend on the facts and evidence of each case and the laws in force at the time. Every case is different, so the outcome of one case does not predict or guarantee the outcome of another. This page is not legal advice. For your own case, please confirm through a consultation.
If your situation is similar, ask by phone.
I will listen to your situation and tell you what to do first. Consultations are available in Korean and English.