The Constitutional Court ruled that the provision of the law that bans the currency exchange business that converts goods and game money acquired through games into cash does not violate the Constitution and is ‘constitutional’.
The Constitutional Court announced on the 28th that the Constitutional Court had unanimously decided that it was constitutional by unanimous opinion of the judges in the case of a constitutional complaint filed by Mr.
Person A, the operator of a PC room, was handed over to trial on charges of currency exchange business, such as exchanging game money obtained by customers while providing Internet games such as poker, Go, and Hitgo, from 2015 to 2019. He was sentenced to 1 year and 4 months in prison.
In 2017, an official from Company B, who helped convert 263.5 billion won worth of game money at the brokerage site they operated, was also indicted and sentenced to a fine of 30 million won. During the appeal process, Mr. A and others filed a constitutional complaint against the provisions of this law, but when they were dismissed, they filed a constitutional complaint in September 2017.
Article 32, Paragraph 1, Article 7 of the Game Industry Act raised by them regulates the act of exchanging or repurchasing points, prizes, and game money obtained through games. Violation of this rule is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding 50 million won in accordance with Article 44 of the same Act.
Mr. A and others filed a constitutional complaint, arguing that the provisions of the law excessively infringe on freedom of career choice by prohibiting the game money exchange business, but the Constitutional Court did not accept the claims of the applicants.
The Constitutional Court said, “Preventing acts that undermine the distribution order of game products is a public interest that is necessary for the promotion of the game industry and establishment of a sound game culture. It is justified that it is trying to prevent
In addition, he emphasized, “Compared to the public interest of preventing disruption of the distribution order of game products achieved by the provisions of this case law, the extent to which Mr.
