2. The subject of the rating classification provided by the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) is the contents of the game product or program itself, i.e., the contents of the game product that is not the game product or program license itself, and the contents of the game product content description attached thereto;

Therefore, the act of providing game products with contents different from the rating obtained” under Article 32(1)2 of the Game Industry Act includes not only the act of changing the contents of the application or the explanation attached thereto, but also the act of adding the important functions not indicated in the above application or explanation, but also the act of providing separate external organs, which is not likely to cause any change to the contents of the game products.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12 Decided May 29, 2014). The gist of the instant facts charged is that “The Defendant provided customers with game products different from the contents of the rating by allowing the game to be carried out on the external route using an external storage device different from the contents rated by the Game Rating Board in the course of operating the game site, thereby allowing the game to be carried out on the external route using the external storage device, irrespective of the user’s ability.”

However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the game of the defendant provided to customers.