From December 2013 to January 7, 2014, the Defendant installed 40 game machine “IBB-Gu,” “G Gameland,” hereinafter in Gwangju Northern-gu F and the first floor, with 40 game machine “CC-NP-130925-06,” and offered them for the use of customers. Unlike the contents rated in the game machine, as the Defendant provided for the use of customers, the number of lines transferred to the winning section set out in the probability-related file, and the game was carried out, and if specific data exist, the background was connected in the order of screen and the winning results were achieved accordingly.

As a result, the defendant provided game products different from the contents classified by the Game Management Committee for the use of customers.

2. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to recognize that the defendant was aware of the fact that the above game was a game product with a content different from the rating obtained. Rather, according to the arguments and records of the case, the defendant's sales of CDs, which can play a game for "I" game, should have deliberated on the game product and have a lawyer's certificate. The game classification number of the Game Rating Board is indicated in the above game machine, and the game machine is indicated in the game classification number of the Game Rating Board, and in operating the "main displayer's name" device under the name of the administrative agency and other agencies, the above law firm plays a role as a counsel.

It can be recognized that the document containing the phrase " is attached."