1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: “The game related business entity is prohibited from engaging in gambling or other speculative acts using the game product; Defendant A, from December 3, 2011 to December 26, 2011, installed eight computer and monitoring units in the game site “F” in Daejeon Tae-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant game site”) and provided a prepaid coophone in which customers can receive money from them, and then connected the site “too game” (hereinafter “the instant game”), and then charged the instant game with gambling, such as spawers, by filling the number of the said coophone, and return the game money acquired by the customers to customers by using the coophone in accordance with the amount of cash equivalent to the amount of cash, and aided and abetting the Defendant A’s employees to commit the instant crime.”

2. On the ground that even though the Defendants returned the remaining game money to customers by coophones, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants, on the grounds that the said coophones, which can charge the game money, cannot be used for other purposes, such as re-exploiting the game money at the expense for performing the game of this case and changing the money in cash, etc., other than re-exploiting the expense for performing the game of this case, cannot be deemed to have caused or aided and abetted the Defendants to engage in gambling and other speculative acts using the game of this case.

3. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Article 28 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Game Industry Promotion Act") shall be construed as "game business entities related to game products" as follows: