A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles as follows.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant provided game products with contents different from those classified as follows for customers’ use.

If a game is not carried out in money on a 2-free game machine that provides a game to an actual customer with the content classified by the No. 1 of the rating, the game will not be carried out unless it is connected to a single game network that is not connected with a 3-free game network.

C. Not only the contents of a game product itself, but also “providing game products for use different from the contents indicated in the game product description attached thereto” constitutes “providing game products for use different from the contents of the rating classification” under Article 32(1)2 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”).

Judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: (a) from October 1, 2017 to June 18:50 of the same year, the Defendant installed a game of “C” game of “LETIT GO”, which was classified as free game ratings from the Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant game site”) and 50, and 30,000,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant game products” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant game products”). The Defendant provided a machine installed with the instant game products to customers for their use and provided them with money different from the contents classified by the Defendant and provided them to customers for a pop-up operation on the game screen so that customers can use the said game products for a fee.