웹3게임의 가상자산거래와 사행성 규제 : 가상자산이용자보호법과 게임산업법과의 관계를 중심으로

초록

Bitcoin and game items are the same as 'property profits' under the criminal law. However, there is a view that virtual assets such as bitcoin are subject to transaction under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, and are subject to prohibition under the Game Industry Act. In particular, when evaluating in the ideology of speculative regulation, in the case of building a system to exchange game items and NFTs acquired while using web 3 games (blockchain games), our lower court's ruling rejects the classification of games as games with speculative nature, so these games cannot be serviced. However, it is necessary to find out what is the real benefit of distinguishing between “virtual assets” under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act and “items such as game money” under the Game Industry Act from a criminal legal point of view, as it is allowed to exchange items in general games through an external exchange, and even in gambling simulation games such as GoStop and poker, game money can be purchased within a certain limit (KRW 700,000 per month) under the law. In conclusion, the regulation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act applies if it can be traded as a virtual asset regardless of the game, and the Game Industry Act only considers the transaction as a “virtual asset” under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act to be an “exchange” if it is deemed that the replacement of the game's use results with NFTs or coins or tokens is not considered a “virtual asset” under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, so it is necessary to consider establishing an exception in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act or the Game Industry Act. In conclusion, this research reaffirms that the law is under increasing pressure to evolve in response to AI, and it highlights the necessity for foundational jurisprudential analysis and interdisciplinary, holistic research on AI regulation in the future.

키워드