The part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B by providing free gifts, etc. to Defendant B.

1. (a) Article 28 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) provides that a game business entity related to the game products must comply with the following requirements:

“The offer of free gifts, etc. shall not promote speculation under subparagraph 3.

(b) The kind of premiums prescribed by the Presidential Decree for all game products used by the business providing juvenile games: Provided, That the kind of premiums prescribed by the Presidential Decree (the complete detention and phrases);

(a) Cases concerning cash, merchandise coupons, or securities with oil (excluding those for merchandise coupons, merchandise coupons, or securities), standards for payment, methods of provision, etc.;

Article 44 (1) 1-2 of the Act provides that a person who violates Article 28 (3) of the Act shall be punished.

In light of the above provisions of the Game Industry Act, the points obtained according to the result of the game determined by a contingency method are issued and delivered in units of 5,000 or 10,000 points, and if a person holds them, any person who is included in the game machine and the points that he/she is ordered to pay are not offered to customers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3532, Sept. 4, 2014).B. On the grounds of its reasoning, the lower court: (a) based on its stated reasoning, the coophonephone, which the Defendants offered to users in the game of this case, issued the points that he/she acquired in the process of using the game product, entered the points that he/she acquired in the process of using the game product and entered the points that he/she received in the process of managing it in the process of using the game product, and (b) the coophone game of this case was issued as a means of selling the game product.

It is difficult to see

Based on the judgment, among the facts charged against the Defendants, acquitted the Defendants on the violation of the Act on the Game Industry (excluding the guilty part against Defendant A) due to the speculative lighting through provision of free gifts, etc.

(c)

However, the reasoning of the judgment below and its reasoning.