A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and free gifts offered for the game of this case is merely a race that does not exceed KRW 5,000, and the game of this case is relatively weak and thus promoting speculation.

As the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won suspension of sentence) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative purport of Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”) and the text of the above provision, if the court below rendered free gifts in violation of Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act, which is directly defined as to whether a person promotes speculation pursuant to delegation of the above provision, it constitutes an act of offering free gifts prohibited under the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10565, Jun. 11, 2009); and since, in the case of the game of this case, the possibility of selecting a person type is significantly different depending on the personal type of the game, etc., it is difficult to view that the game constitutes an act of offering free gifts in violation of Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act, which is directly defined as to whether a person promotes speculation pursuant to delegation of the above provision, it constitutes an act of offering free gifts prohibited under the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do50.).

Even if the standard of free gifts under the above Enforcement Decree is based on the consumer sale price, and considering the fact that the consumer sale price of the letter of this case exceeds 5,000 won, the defendant's act of offering free gifts constitutes an act of offering free gifts which promotes speculation prohibited by the Act of the Game Industry.

(2) We examine the judgment of the party, and examine the above circumstances cited by the court below.