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

From January 8, 2012 to January 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) operated a game room in C and C and C around the third floor of each week; (b) provided customers with a program using an external device in the 35 game machine of “Sec (Seck) game in which all game hours end; and (c) provided them with a program using an external device in the 35th unit of “Sec (Seck) game in which the total use of the game is rated; and (d) provided them with a score in itself regardless of their ability to use; (c) provided them with an intangible ticket of KRW 100,000 by changing the game score acquired as a result of the use of the game to a right of KRW 10,000,000; and (d) provided them with a game product for use different from the contents of the game product as a result of the use of the game; and (d) provided them with a speculative act using it as a game product for use.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. E statements;

1. Review of the result of enforcement support;

1. Application of statutes on game description;

1. Subparagraph 4 of Article 45 and Article 32 (1) 2 of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry, Article 44 (1) 1 and subparagraph 2 of Article 28 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, Article 30 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc., Article 44 (1) 2 and Article 32 (1) 7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The criminal defendant under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act has the same criminal records.