A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal principles that the defendants issued a certificate of custody to customers who found in F (hereinafter "the game of this case"). However, the certificate of custody of points is nothing more than providing the game users with an opportunity to re-becilate the game. The game users are the main agents of the speculative act, causing property gains from many people by using the game machine or obtaining the points, and they do not intend to make profits from property by making a decision of gain by an incidental method. Thus, the issuance of a certificate of custody by the defendants alone does not lead to the speculative act or inducing them to do so.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, there was no implied perception that the Defendants sold and commercialized a certificate of keeping points among customers inside or outside the game of this case.

In addition, after the defendants commenced the game of this case, the investigative agency investigated whether the game machine was opened or altered or exchanged. However, there was no control over once, and there was no mentioning about the issuance of points stored in the process, so there was intention that the defendants would allow the defendants to engage in gambling or other speculative acts using game water or to leave the same.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged, and in full view of such facts and circumstances, a kind of life-saving certificate that the Defendants issued to customers in the game of this case to use the game products installed in the game of this case is identical to the securities.