A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the non-crime portion - the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry due to the classification of rating and the provision of other game products although it could be recognized that the defendant could have known that the game machine was remodeled as stated in the facts charged, the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act due to the provision of game products.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a sum of three million won, confiscation) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case, the court below found the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts that the defendant purchased and installed 29 Bludle Game Co., Ltd. and 30 Pludle Game Co., Ltd. in the opening of the game of this case, and the 30 Pludle Game Co., Ltd. as a result of appraisal by the Committee on Water Management of the game of this case, the 30 Pludle Game Co., Ltd. could not be confirmed differently from the rating classification. In the above facts, if the defendant knew that the above game water was altered in a high level of speculation, the court below found that the defendant provided the game of this case to customers with similar contents in the same game room, and that it is difficult to find the reasons that only the Bludle Plodle Game Co., Ltd. was altered in a high level of gambling, and that it was also difficult for the defendant to provide the same contents as the rating classification of the new Mludle Game Co., Ltd., the evidence classified by the 99 Pludver.

For reasons of lack of recognition, innocence was pronounced.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely compared with the evidence records, the judgment of the court below on this part of the facts charged is just and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts.

B. Determination on the unfair argument of sentencing is made.