1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that the charge of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. by prisoners of malicious programs was recognized for the reasons indicated in its holding is acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience or by misapprehending the legal principles as to malicious program distribution or common offense, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, an appeal is not allowed to be filed

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court: (a) repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Promotion of the Motion Pictures and Video Products Act (Act No. 7943 of April 28, 2006, which was the foundation of Article 32(1)7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”);

[1] The former Sound Records and Game Software Act (hereinafter “former Sound Records and Game Software Act”)

Article 32 subparag. 3 of the former Sound Products Act (Public Notice No. 2005-9 of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism) provides for the types of premiums that a game providing business entity may provide and the methods of providing such premiums. Article 32 subparag. 3 of the former Sound Records and Game Products Act provides that “The act of exchanging, arranging exchange, or re-purchasing premiums offered shall not be conducted as one of the matters to be observed at the time of providing a light product.”