2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

On the 10th page 9 of the first instance judgment, the following is added to the following ( even if the result of the verification by this court is based on the results of the verification, the success is determined by a smoke, regardless of the user's actual ability, as the speed of the revolving of the revolving 4 or more that the user can obtain free gifts, and the success is determined by a smoke, and it may be rapid depending on the degree of difficulty set by the manager of the revolving wheel game at the speed of the revolving wheel, and the following is added to the 3th page below. (4) Since the Plaintiff is only a donation of less than 5,00 won from the game products of this case, the Plaintiff must be excluded from the speculative machine pursuant to Article 16-2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act.

However, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Game Industry Act excludes game products subject to the Game Industry Act. As such, Article 28 of the Game Industry Act that prescribes matters to be observed by game business entities related to game products does not apply to speculative game products (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du12650, Jan. 28, 2010; 2009Du12117, Feb. 25, 2010). Article 16-2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act only provides cases where premiums of less than 5,00 won are offered as an exception to the matters to be observed by game business entities related to game products according to the delegation under the proviso of Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Act. As such, as long as the game products of this case fall under speculative gaming machines due to fear of speculative spirit, etc., as seen earlier, Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act is merely applicable to the game products of this case.