A. The right to recommend a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is merely to allow customers of the game of this case to play a game again using the remaining points, and the defendants got to exchange or exchange the above reuse right.

As long as it cannot be deemed that the said reuse right does not constitute an “property interest” as a “registered securities” and thus, it cannot be deemed that the said reuse right issued and exchangeds the said reuse right, and the Defendants had the customers engage in gambling and other speculative acts using game products, or left them to do so.

In addition, the Defendants reported the prosecution's non-guilty decision and the court's acquittal decision in a similar case, and the Defendants did not have any awareness of illegality and any intentional act, and the Defendants' act constitutes a mistake of law that misleads the Defendants that their act did not constitute a crime under the law, and thus, the illegality should be avoided.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A, B: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of confiscation, 3 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances can be comprehensively acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. ① The points indicated in the “credit” window of the game product of this case refer to the amount of cash that customers invested in the game machine at the pre-use stage of the game product, and the points indicated in the “bank” window refer to the results obtained through the use of the game product by customers. The Defendants were printed in advance on a one-time basis (10,000 points) based on the total amount of points remaining in the window.