For this reason, the prosecutor filed an appeal only for the guilty portion on the ground of unfair sentencing, and did not appeal for the acquittal portion. Since the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below is separated, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry due to having the convicted part of the judgment of the court below perform

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s right to free use of this case merely exchanged a right to free use for one-hour per 10,000 points for the convenience of customers so that they may play a game again, and there is no fact that the Defendant exchanged it, or opened or altered game water, and such right to free use cannot be deemed as securities with an indefinite name. Thus, the Defendant had the customers perform a speculative act by using the said right to use free use, and the Defendant had them perform a speculative act using the game water.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. It is unfair that the sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below (the suspended sentence of 2 years, 80 hours, community service, confiscation, and additional collection of 14.8 million won) is too uneased and uneased.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that a speculative act under Article 28 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) refers to an act by which the acquisition and loss was determined by an incidental method and causing property loss or profit to the person who committed the act.

Therefore, in order to fall under the speculative acts stipulated in the above provisions, certain financial benefits or losses may be incurred, and the game providing business operator is classified as class.