압수된 증 제 1호 증 중 ‘ 민속 윷놀이’...

A. (1) Defendant A did not conspired to commit the instant crime with the co-defendant B (J management) of the first instance trial, and there was no fact that Defendant A had arranged customers who acquired premiums to exchange them with J.

Belgium Defendant C is only the head of the title, and the facts are merely the simple employee who works after receiving KRW 80,000 per day, and there is no intention to assist the crime of this case by co-defendant A, etc.

나. 법리 오해( 피고인들) 이 사건 금카드의 실질은 온라인 게임의 게임 머니와 마찬가지이고, ‘ 민속 윷놀이’ 는 우연적인 방법이 아닌 이용자의 노력, 실력이나 전략이 게임의 승패를 좌우하므로 위 금카드를 환전하는 것은 게임산업진흥에 관한 법률( 이하 ‘ 게임산업 법’ 이라고 한다) 제 32조 제 1 항 제 7호, 동법 시행령 18조의 3에 의하여 금지되는 ‘ 환전’ 이 아니다.

(c)

misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the confiscated portion (Defendant A) ① Ten (No. 10 (No. 10) games seized by the Defendant A were leased from R, and thus belongs to the ownership of a person other than the offender. ② Computer main body and coefficient (No. 2 and 3) are not directly related to criminal acts. ③ Money (No. 5 or 8) is mixed with operating income due to normal operation of the game of this case, so it cannot be forfeited because it cannot be separated from operating income due to money exchange. ④ Money card (No. 9 and 10) is not a profit derived from money exchange. Thus, the first instance judgment’s confiscation is erroneous.

(d)

Each sentence of the first deliberation on sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in Defendant A's imprisonment, and one year of suspended sentence in Defendant C's imprisonment in April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts (the Defendants), the Defendant A was from the beginning of February 2016.