A. The primary reason for the defendants' primary reason for the claim is as shown in the annexed sheet. Among them, the part concerning the reason for the occurrence of the liability for damages is as follows: "The defendant's Game Rating Board erred by failing to perform its duty of care in interpreting the definition of the Game Industry Promotion Act in determining whether each of the video products of this case is a speculative game product, and the act of the defendant's Game Rating Board is negligent in failing to perform its duty of care in interpreting the definition of the Act on Promotion of Game Industry in determining whether each of the video products of this case is a speculative game product, so the defendant's Game Rating Board is liable for compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiff. In addition, since police officers belonging to the Busan Busan District Police Agency who are public officials seize the computer of this case on the basis of the erroneous judgment of the defendant's Game Rating Board, the defendant's Republic is liable for compensation

B. The grounds for the conjunctive claim against Defendant Republic of Korea are as shown in the annexed sheet. Of them, the part on the grounds for the liability for damages is as follows: “The police officers belonging to the Republic of Korea and the prosecutor belonging to the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the failure to return the game machine after seizing the game machine of this case after determining the error in the requirements for confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the primary claim as to Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, each of the video products of this case claimed by the plaintiff as simple video products falls under the game products as provided in Article 2-1 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (A.).