Therefore, if a game providing business entity’s game providing business entity’s game products are determined by a game providing business entity’s rating classification in a friendly manner, and there is exchange value for the game users to receive and distribute consideration among the game users as a result of the game, the issuance and delivery of the above certificates, etc. as a result of the game constitutes a game providing business entity’s game act by using the game products. Even if it is possible for a game providing business entity to verify part of personal information, such as the name and telephone number of the game users issued by the certificate issued as a result of the game, if anyone, other than those issued the certificate, can enjoy economic benefits, such as using the game products according to the game scores, etc. stored in the certificate without any restriction, if any, other than those issued the certificate, can enjoy economic benefits, such as using the game products, which are elements of the speculative act. In addition, barring any special circumstance, the game providing business entity who issued and delivered the certificate of such nature, should be deemed to have sufficiently aware that it violated the duty of Article 28 subparag

1. As to the assertion regarding the vessel investigation

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of the Defendant’s war investigation by determining that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s criminal intent for the instant crime was only caused by the investigative agency.

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as to the

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

A. Article 28 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) provides, one of the matters to be observed by game business entities related to game products, that “no one shall allow others to engage in gambling or other speculative acts using game products, or leave them to do so.” Article 44(1)1 of the Game Industry Act provides that a person who violates Article 28 subparag. 2 of the said Act shall be punished. Speculative acts as referred to in the said provision refers to an act by which the acquisition and loss is determined by an incidental method and bring about property loss or profits to the actors.

Therefore, if the acquisition and loss of a game provided by a game providing business entity through a rating classification is determined by a game providing business entity, and the deed, etc. provided to a game user as a result of the game has an exchange value that can receive and distribute consideration among the game users, the issuance and delivery of the above certificate, etc. as a result of such game constitutes a game providing act by using the game product. Even if it is possible for a game providing business entity to confirm part of personal information, such as the name and telephone number of the game users issued by the certificate issued as a result of the game, if any, other than those issued with the certificate, can enjoy economic benefits, such as using the game product according to the game scores stored in the certificate without any restriction, if any, other than those issued with the certificate, he/she can enjoy economic benefits, such as using the game product according to the game scores stored in the certificate, such act shall be deemed to have property benefits, which are elements of the speculative act. In addition, barring special circumstances, the game providing business entity who has issued and delivered the certificate of such nature, should be sufficiently aware that it violated the duty

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant, a game providing business operator, through his employee, only received brief information on the name and telephone number of customers, etc., and issued a membership card with a game score stored as a result of the game without taking measures to verify whether the information is consistent with the facts, and then there is no way to confirm whether the holder is the same person as the customer with the card issued, and the personal information of the above member card issued by the defendant does not fully indicate the personal information of the defendant. ② The defendant established a membership code of the above game book to identify the bar code of the member card and to verify the information stored in it, but this is the fact that the defendant issued and issued the card and issued the card and issued the remaining game score to identify the identity of the person who intends to use it, and ③ the fact that the defendant actually purchased the card and issued it to 3000 won with a member of the game with a total of 00 won set-off and issued it to the police officer.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the above membership card issued by the defendant is a certificate that enables the identification of brief personal information stored therein through the bar code recognition machine, but it is not possible to confirm whether the original input information is processed or not, and even if it is not issued and delivered, the holder has economic interest, such as obtaining the right to use the game products equivalent to the accumulated game score, and it seems that there is sufficient distribution value among the users of the game products and actually possible distribution. Therefore, the defendant who issued and delivered the membership card is deemed to have violated the duty not to perform speculative acts by using the game products, or not to have any other person do so, and the defendant's intent also can be sufficiently recognized.

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, and it did not err by violating the principle of evidence judgment or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)