A. The Defendant, who received KRW 50,00 from D and received KRW 50,00 from customers, did not write the game money corresponding thereto, and returned KRW 20,000,000,000, which is remaining, but is merely a “return” prohibited under the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, and thus, should be acquitted.

In other words, it cannot be deemed that “for the purpose of running a game” is obtained through the use of a game machine.”

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

Article 32(1)7 of the same Act provides that “No person shall engage in a business of exchanging, arranging exchange, or re-purchaseing tangible or intangible results (referring to game money prescribed by Presidential Decree and things similar thereto prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as score, premiums, and virtual currency used in the game) acquired through the use of a game product.” The legislative purpose of the same provision is to prevent the exchange of game outcomes provided within the operating system with cash or goods having equivalent value outside the operating system and to improve the quality of cultural life of the people by establishing a healthy game culture (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1505, Dec. 13, 2012). However, considering the ordinary meaning of the phrase “stock exchange”, “the act of receiving game outcome and delivering money,” other than “the act of receiving money,” and “the act of receiving money,” the above provision should not be construed as having limited meaning “the act of receiving money from the game product” and “the act of receiving money from the game product.”