A Imprisonment for 10 months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 3,000,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

【2014 Highest 3849】 [Criminal Facts] The Defendant installed 55 game apparatuses of the “sprinkers” in the Guri-si E and the 1st underground floor from January 23, 2014 to May 23, 2014, and provided customers with access to the game.

The game machine was rated as a game product with no function of example, chain, or automatic progress by using five copies of the card.

However, the Defendant provided the contents of the game machine differently from the classification of the game machine by having the video products generated at a certain time contributed as an example function, reducing the winning amount first in the Saved Cin of the room in the process of winning the winning amount, reducing the amount of winning, or reducing the amount of winning, the “Saved Cloin” of the “Coman” was accumulated, and allowing the winning of the amount in installments.

As a result, the Defendant provided game contents different from the contents classified by the Game Rating Board in the above manner.

"2015 Highest 673"

1. Defendant A

A. On December 6, 2014, at around 22:40, the Defendant: (a) discovered that the victim H operated in Guri-si G was carrying a pet dog in the said restaurant; (b) discovered that the pet dog B was being carried out by the said restaurant, it was difficult for the Defendant to see the victim’s phrase “ how to put the pet dog in the restaurant,” and caused the disturbance, such as putting the wall and putting the leash with the main branch in the wall.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

B. On December 6, 2014, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) around 23:00, at the same place as the preceding paragraph; (b) the police officer, who was reported 112 and called out, attempted to arrest K, a police officer, who was a police officer, to a riot offender, who was committing an act in the line of duty, to arrest K, who was in the line of duty, at a restaurant, who was in the line of duty.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers in the act of committing a crime.

2. Defendant B

A. The Defendant interferes with business affairs.