However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From April 6, 2018 to April 20, 2018, the Defendant operated the game room with the trade name “E” and “E” in the DMoel underground located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from around April 6, 2018, and installed 40 game machine “Omera” in the game room.

“Omeri game” is classified as a first-person type game with which customers automatically deduct 100 points per game in which the opening or strawing of the game machine starts, and the game starts, and the water height of the strawing, etc. marked on the stud, according to the third-class screen, the third-class game is one-time type game with which customers acquire 1 full scores, 3 full scores, 5 full scores, 10 first full scores, 20 first full scores, 5 second full scores, 5 second full scores, and 5 first increase in straw time of the game. However, the “Omeri use” game installed in the above head of the game was classified as a full scores from a physical-class game without a smoke function, and even if the customers do not enjoy the studle, it was added to the automatic function so that they can play the game automatically even if they do not take part in the studie, and if customers are unable to take part in the studie, it is impossible to acquire the 10th of the new game.

Defendant provided customers with the “Omera” game machine altered as above in the above in the above game room, and if customers want to exchange, they exchanged 10% of the game machine’s 10% of the total amount of money they acquired at the Kamera in the above game room to exchange cash with commission fees, thereby gaining profits of 20-3 million won per day.

As a result, the Defendant provided game water to the game with contents different from the rating classified by the Game Water Management Committee, or exhibited and stored for that purpose, and customers exchanged tangible and intangible results obtained through the use of game water as a business.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's person;