Compared with consuming a huge amount of manpower and material resources to implement strict management and illegal bans, it is necessary to effectively achieve the legislative purpose of safeguarding public welfare. The difference between the Laizhu case and Interpretation No. 738 One of the main arguments of the petitioning local government is that the Interpretation No. 738 concludes that the local government can set stricter requirements than the central law on the distance restrictions on the business premises of the electronic amusement industry within its jurisdiction. However, the reason for the judge's decision in the Laizhu case is that the

"Interpretation No. 738" is different from the old picture restoration situation in this case. First of all, the third paragraph of the "Interpretation No. 738" mentioned that Article 11 of the "Regulations on the Administration of Electronic Game Fields" formulated by the central government has expressly empowered the local competent authorities to issue, revoke and abolish the electronic game field business class certificate and handle The right to register related matters. Therefore, within the scope of not violating the central regulations, the local government can naturally use the self-government regulations as the norms according to local conditions. The regulations also

violated the central regulations. Secondly, the effect of local government regulations will affect people outside the local jurisdiction. Just like the example in the reason, the meat sold on the train may be sold legally because it is driven to different counties and cities. It is not only limited to the residents of the specified places, which is different from the fact that the video game business premises are in the specified counties and cities. This article has been reprinted with permission from the Judgment of Reading Together , and the original text is published here Further reading Anti-Lai Pig Playoff: