A. Legal principles 1) The game machine No. 1 in the annexed list No. 1 in the annexed list No. 1 in the judgment of the court below was registered in the name of X, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the Game Industry Act due to the operation of the unregistered juvenile game industry in this part.

2) Since the crime of violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry in the holding of the lower judgment is in conflict with the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Educational Environment for which judgment became final and conclusive, a judgment of acquittal should be rendered on this part

B. The lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court as to the part No. 1 of the annexed Table No. 1 as indicated in the lower judgment, i.e., “AL (x’s wife)” (Evidence No. 82 No. 82) and the Defendant stated to the effect that “AX was engaged in the above game business from the end of August 2016” (Evidence No. 81) and the Defendant stated to the effect that “AX was registered as a juvenile game providing business operator on September 12, 2016 and was registered as a juvenile game providing business operator on September 12, 2016 (Evidence No. 4-5 of the evidence No. 81) and ③ AL of X constitutes a juvenile game providing business operator registered as a juvenile game providing business operator on September 12, 2016, the lower court’s judgment was justifiable in view of the fact that the Defendant was registered as the juvenile game providing business operator No. 16.2.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) On September 19, 2017, the Defendant’s claim of acquittal was about KRW 7805, the Busan District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 7805.