If Game Rating Board tries to interpret the paragraph 4 of Article 22 of Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry as the meaning that it can revoke it’s rating of a game when the rated game falls under the category of rating rejection owing to Ordinance’s revision after the rating, the interpretation could violate constitutionalism and protection of trust. According to the paragraph 2 and 4 of Article 22 of The Act, The Board may reject a rating application filed by an entity that has requested a rating without legitimate authority or that is using other illegal methods and shall, without delay, revoke its rating when it determines or discovers that a rated game falls under the category of rating rejection. Administrative court ruled that the interpretation of a law regarding revocation of a beneficial administrative disposition should be limited in the original meaning of the law; it is desirable that the Board’s the Interpretation Criteria of Ordinance relating to the revocation of a game rating could be reconsidered in the viewpoint of constitutionalism and protection of trust.

Currently, Game Rating Board is regulating online web board games for the purpose of eradicating the speculation of the games through prohibition on direct charge system of the game and now is trying to even ban the indirect charge method. However not only the direct charge system but also the indirect charge system is a legal business model under the Promotion Act on Game Industry. There are 3 reasons: First, the web board game is essentially different from gambling. In order for the activity in question to be considered as gambling, it should meet all of the three requirements which are consideration, chance and prize. However, the game doesn't give prizes so that excludes it from gambling. Second, the deliberation about the prohibition on direct charge system of the game deviates from the limits of delegated legislation. Since the web board games do not fall under the purview of the concept of gambling, the deliberation is a subordinate to the Promotion Act on Game Industry, the deliberation itself may be in violation of the delegation range if the web board games are judged as operating illegally. Lastly, the prohibitions on the business model of the web board games transcend the constitutional limits of the regulations of games involving gambling and in the long run fringe constitutional rights. The essential cause of the problem surrounding online games is attributed to exchanging real money into game money outside the system of the game, not in the online web board game itself. Hence, impetuous regulation on indirect charge system of the web board games will substantially shrink the national online game industry, making other competitors from other nations enjoy the benefits.

The article 18 of game review regulation has some problems related to mandate of upper law; it violates the limit of mandate of upper law and judicial power. The article 2 of Game industry promotion law defines the concept of ‘gambling behavior’. But the article 18 of game review regulation includes behaviors which are not included in the article 2 to regulate them. Court should have the power to interpret which is ‘gambling behavior’ or not; according to the article 18 of game review regulation, the game rating board has the power to interpret which is ‘gambling behavior’ or not. According to the revision of Game industry promotion law, rating rejection to the violation of Game industry promotion law is possible. Minor violation of law as to business regulation should not be considered as the reason of rating rejection. Therefore, The revision of game law has probability of violating Constitution principle such as proportion rule.

문화부는 웹보드게임 규제 개선안을 담은 시행령 개정안을 발표하여 고시하였다. 그러나 영업질서 규제 조항을 근거로 하는 시행령 개정안도 죄형법정주의 또는 과잉금지의 원칙 위반 가능성이 높다. 즉, 시행령 개정안 역시 사행성방지라는 목적에만 매몰되어 이용자 및 사업자의 권리침해에 대하여 고려하지 않고 등급분류제도 이외의 요소인 영업질서 조항으로 규제하여 게임물의 표현을 제약하고 있다는 점을 미루어 볼 때 문제점이 있다. 이를 심의규정상 등급분류제도의 기준으로 편입한다면 헌법에서 금지하는 사실상 검열에 해당할 것이다. 향후 시행령 개정여부는 규개위와 법제처의 심사가 관건이 될 것이며 게임물의 내용규제에 대한 원칙과 절차를 잠탈하고 있는지 여부, 이용자 권리 제한 우려 등이 주요 쟁점이 될 것으로 예상된다. 그러나 등급분류제도 이외의 요소로 게임의 의사표현을 규제하는 문화부의 사행화방지 대책은 게임사행성 문제의 근본원인을 잘못 파악한 것이며 오히려 타국의 유사서비스만 이득을 보게 하여 국내 웹보드게임산업을 크게 위축시키는 결과를 가져올 것이다. 사행적인 목적으로 이용되는 불법게임콘텐츠물에 대한 사전심의 및 규제는 필요하나 합헌적인 방식으로 이루어져야 하고, 게임사행성 문제 해결방향은 게임 외부에서의 게임머니 환전 문제에 초점이 맞추어지는 것이 바람직하다.