게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts), it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s act of keeping the game dog opened and modified with “sea-to-sea” game, the rating of which was denied, in order to provide it to unspecified customers.
2. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below determined that the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant intended to provide a game material by knowing that the game material in the instant game machine was altered into a different content, or that there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant intended to provide a game material by being aware of the fact that it was possible to implement the said game machine as a “sea-gate game” or that the Defendant intended to provide a game material by being aware of the fact that the game material in the instant game machine was altered into a different content.
The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① double iron bars and CCTVs in the game room in which the instant game machine was kept as the Defendant’s defense room, rather than the Defendant’s installation, there was room for not to remove the Defendant’s installation of an illegal game room in the same place as the previous location, and ② there was a brhetor for money exchange in the game room.
Even if the game was classified as a rating, it may be intended to exchange the game site in the operation of the game site. Thus, the defendant knew that the game of this case was a game product for which the classification of the game of this case was refused due to such circumstance.
In full view of the fact that it is impossible to readily conclude, the facts charged in this case are reasonable deliberations.