The Defendant decided to take overall charge of the recruitment of member stores and the establishment of game products of “E (E, one-day spatoma2)” (E, one-day spatoma2) provided by D and D, and F decided to take overall charge of the supply and exchange of the above game products by supplying “E” game products to affiliated stores and operating a exchange site in exchange for points obtained through the use of the above game products. G (criminal prosecution) decided to manage the exchange site and recruit member stores.

The aforementioned “E” game work is an online game which received from the Game Rating Board the rating of “not to use by juveniles” and is determined by the user’s personal ability, such as net power, where the result of the game is charactered in line with the game progress situation. The instant “E” game work offered by the Defendant, etc. for use by the Defendant, etc. is an online game in which the game is carried out online by online connection between the users. Unlike the contents of the deliberation, if the game is carried out differently from the contents of the deliberation, the game is automatically carried out even if the user does not operate other devices such as Mas, and the part of the part requiring cooperation between the users is omitted, regardless of the user’s ability, and the game is carried out only within the franchise store and the franchise operator’s failure rate can be adjusted.

The defendant was aware of the fact that he was an altered game product, and was aware that he would exchange F, etc. according to the scores obtained by customers.

The Defendant, from January 201 to February 2010, through G and French domestic member stores recruitment policies, set up game products in a franchise store and set up game products in a franchise store, and each franchise store supplied by the Defendant, etc.