A. Each of the instant games (No. 1, 2, and 4) whose facts were erroneous or misleading as to the confiscated portion or whose legal principles were confiscated is a lawful game machine subject to normal rating classification, etc. and unrelated to the instant case, and thus, cannot be confiscated.

B. The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 3 million, confiscation) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the part of confiscation (1) In the case of game products owned or occupied by a person who had had others perform speculative acts or left others unattended to do so in violation of Article 44(1)1 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, the game products in question contributed substantially to the performance of such violation.

Article 44(2) of the Korea Game Industry Promotion Act, which is recognized by the court below, is subject to the necessary commitment (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4075, Sep. 14, 2006; 2009Do70, Mar. 10, 201; 2009Do70, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant established and operated the game room in the game of this case by setting up 20 game of this case, 20 game of the nature of credit game of this case (Evidence 1); 20 game of the nature of the game of this case (Evidence 4); 20 game of the nature of the game of this case (Evidence 4). In the process, the defendant had operated the game room by setting up the game room in the game of this case.

게임 물 점수를 현금으로 거래하는 것을 묵인하였을 뿐만 아니라 손님들 로부터 요청 받은 바에 따라 해당 게임 물의 점수를 다른 게임 물의 점수로 바꿔줌으로써, 위 손님들 로 하여금 사행행위를 하게 하거나 이를 하도록 내버려 둔 사실을 인정할 수 있는 바, 비록 위 각 게임 물들이 등급 분류 등을 받은 적법한 게임 기라 하더라도, 이는 이 사건 게임 장 내에서 이루어진 사행행위에 직접적으로 제공된 게임기로서 피고인의 이 사건 범행에 실질적으로 기여하였다고

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that it is necessary pursuant to Article 44 (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act.