2. The defendant's "B, rating classification number: C, rating classification decision date: D.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

B. Relevant statutes

C. The reasoning for the lower court’s reasoning as to each of the above parts of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

(b)the person; and

C. Since the partial entry is the same, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment

1) As in the judgment of the first instance court on whether a game product constitutes a speculative game, etc., “the Game Industry Promotion Act” shall be reduced accordingly. Article 21(1) provides that a person who intends to produce or distribute a game product with the intent to distribute the game product or provide it for the use thereof shall obtain a rating on the contents of the game product in question from the Defendant before producing or distributing the game product in question. Article 22(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on Special Cases Concerning Speculative Acts, Etc.”).

Article 22(4) of the Criminal Act provides that a person who has applied for a rating classification with respect to an act or instrument subject to regulation or punishment pursuant to the provisions of other Acts, such as the Criminal Act, or this Act, a person who has applied for a rating without justifiable title, or has applied for a rating by fraud or other improper means, or a person who has applied for a rating with respect to a game product which falls under a speculative game product, may refuse a rating classification. Article 22(4) provides that the defendant shall without delay revoke the rating classification decision when he/she becomes aware

In addition, Article 21 (7) and Article 22 (5) of the Game Industry Act shall be based on the criteria for classification and the verification of speculativeness.