However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date of the final judgment.

No one shall provide game products for the distribution or use, the contents of which are different from the classification obtained by the Game Products Management Committee, or display or keep them therefor.

On April 14, 2014, the Defendant obtained permission from the government market to conduct a general game providing business, and established 50 units of “Jinmana” within a business establishment of approximately 40 square meters located in Gui-si C.

The term "Reliable Posk" is classified as only a simple visual effect, and is unrelated to a chain, for example, the game products installed at the above-mentioned establishment is classified as one-way-based file (C: /Rinabow - probow - prob.p.m.) in the game machine with a general 5-line-line-line-line-based juvenile-based one-way-based file (e.g., yellow, north, fish, straw, etc.) and the one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way-based one-way.

At around 13:00 on April 17, 2014, the Defendant began business with the trade name “D” at the above establishment, and provided game products for use different from the contents classified by the Game Products Management Committee.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of the accused, E, and F;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the permission of general game providing business operators, on-site photographs, results of inspection and support, and investigation reports (in response to the response of control results), asserts that there is no criminal intent since the defendant did not know that the game machine installed in the game of this case was altered.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, i.e., the game machine of this case, which was modified to have an example function different from the content of the rating, and ii) the Defendant’s Internet search.