However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Defendant

B A had a general game providing business with the trade name of "D Gameland" in Gunsan City, and Defendant A operated the game site of this case under the delegation of Defendant B.

No one shall allow another person to gamble or perform other speculative acts by using any game product, or leave the same to do so, and no one shall distribute, provide for use, exhibit or keep any game product with the contents different from those of the game product rated.

Defendant

B directly from April 8, 2020 to April 10, 2020, from around April 11, 2020 to around April 21, 2020, from around April 11, 2020 to around April 21, 2020, the Plaintiff entrusted the operation of the said D Gameland to the Defendant, so that the said D Gameland, unlike the contents classified by the Game Management Committee, could make the said D Gameland to be commercialized with the customers by offering the 60 game machine 60 scores, which arbitrarily added the separate settlement function storing the prize money according to the said function within the domain of the game product, to the unspecified number of customers, which arbitrarily added the identification rate according to the specific background image.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to provide game products with contents different from the game products rated, and caused customers to engage in gambling and other speculative acts using the game products, or to leave them to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on internal investigation (related to seized articles), photographs, such as inside and outside a game room, reports on internal investigation (evaluation results by the Game Rating and Administration Committee), and replies of control support results;

1. Criminal facts;