However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the above sentence shall be executed.

Defendant

A From October 14, 2013 to December 20, 2013, from Gwangju Dong-gu D and 2 to December 20, 2013, a person who establishes and operates a game room 40 game machine “free” in the trade name of “E Gameland.” Defendant B is an employee in charge of customer management, card re-defabing and exchange affairs discharged from the game machine mainly at night in the above game site.

No one shall engage in the business of exchanging or arranging exchange or repurchase of tangible or intangible results obtained through the use of game products.

The Defendants separate a space in which an item card for money exchange (one name “morl”, co-printed and in the face of the card) and an item card for non-exchange exclusive use (one name “family card,” and no yellow belt on the side of the card) are received, and conspired to exchange an item card for money exchange with 9,000 won after deducting 10% fee per 10% of the card for money exchange.

Accordingly, from December 10, 2013 to December 20, 2013, Defendant B exchanged for KRW 630,000 in total at KRW 70,000 per head of 9,00 for whom Defendant B demanded the exchange of an item card from the customer F who was found in the above game site from December 10, 201 to December 20, 201.

As a result, Defendants conspired to engage in money exchange business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement No. 6 of the suspect interrogation protocol (No. 2) on Defendant B

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on credit cards;

1. Relevant Articles 44 (1) 2 and 32 (1) 7 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry concerning criminal facts, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with labor;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Confiscation Industry and Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is that Defendant A is the actual owner of business, Defendant B is the same criminal record, and Defendants’ crime is promoting speculation, and the social harm resulting therefrom is great.