(W) The grounds for appeal filed on March 29, 201 and the summary of the pleadings filed on April 14, 2016 are deemed to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed.

In the reasoning of the above appeal and the summary of the oral argument, the defense counsel argued that ① the defendant only introduced and sold the game material different from that of the game material classified as the rating, and ② the defendant did not know that the game material of this case was opened or altered. However, the defendant not only recognized all the facts charged in the proceedings of the court below and the hearing of bail in the court below, but also recognized the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. In particular, the defendant sold 40 game material of "Nohh" to A and B in the prosecutor's examination protocol against the defendant, and replaced the 2.5 million won with the defendant's statement that he was additionally sold 12 million won and received 2.5 million won, and the defendant sent I.

According to the court below's co-defendant A and B's statement in the court below's co-defendant A and B's statement in the suspect interrogation protocol, and the defendant and I's statement in the request for the provision of communication confirmation data where the monetary details are confirmed at least 300 times between June 20, 2014 and September 29, 2014, the time when the game of this case was operated by the game of this case, which included the fact that the defendant and I managed the game machine, etc., it is recognized that the defendant sold and distributed the game products the contents of which are different from the game products classified as rating, and thus, the attorney's allegation about mistake in the above facts is without merit).

2. The Defendant appears to be against the instant crime.

However, this shall not apply.