1. The interpretation of penal provisions shall be strict, and the interpretation of penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not permitted because it is against the principle of no punishment without the law to excessively or analogically interpret the meaning of penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4758, Nov. 24, 2005, etc.).

Article 32 of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Products Act (amended by Act No. 7943 of Apr. 28, 2006) provides that "any person engaged in a game providing business shall not engage in any act falling under any of the following items, which may encourage speculation or influence juveniles," (a) provide free gifts other than the types determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Culture and Tourism, and (b) provide free gifts without using the methods determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Culture and Tourism." Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the same Act provides that "any person who violates the provisions of subparagraph 3 of Article 32" shall be punished. Article 32 subparagraph 3 of the same Act provides that "the standard for handling free gifts in a game providing business establishment (Public notified by the Minister of Culture and Tourism No. 2005-9) notified by the Minister of Culture and Tourism pursuant to subparagraph 3 of Article 32 of the same Act shall not provide free gifts and methods of offering to a game providing business operator."

However, in light of the language and text of the above notice, the provision merely prohibits the repurchase of premiums offered to a game providing business operator, and it cannot be deemed that the provision of premiums to be observed by a game providing business operator in providing free gifts is stipulated in Article 32 subparagraph 3 of the same Act. Therefore, even if considering the legislative purport and purpose of Article 32 subparagraph 3 of the same Act and the fact that it is necessary to prohibit the repurchase of premiums offered by a game providing business operator in order to effectively regulate the act of promoting speculation or the act of providing free gifts harmful to juveniles, it is deemed that the act of repurchasing premiums offered by a game providing business operator constitutes a violation of Article 32 subparagraph 3 of the same Act as provided in Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the same Act by excessively analogy or expanded interpretation of the penal law, and thus, it is not permissible as it is against the principle of no punishment without law.

In the same purport, the court below's measure of maintaining the first instance court which acquitted the charged facts of this case as it is just, and there is no error of law as to the interpretation of Article 32 subparagraph 3 of the former Sound Records, Video Products and Game Products Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)