A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles, the game products that the Defendants established in the head of the game room are identical with the game products that were classified by the game products rating committee. Even if the game products were different from the rating classification, the Defendants did not know it, but did not know it, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, etc. based on the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the game contents on the game contents for the new and non-identical game products classified by the Committee on Water Management of the game at the beginning; (ii) the changes in the background screen and this fact that the game results are not affected; and (iii) there was no change in the existing probability method when multiple revisions are made, and there was no revision to add the example function; and (iv) the court confirmed that there was an example function informing the Defendants that the game products provided by the employees of the Game Water Management Committee were in the high score winning section as a result of the investigation of the game products provided by the Defendants at the control site; and (iv) the game contents provided by the Defendants, unlike the initially classified program, were added to the game contents that are not in existence of several existing programs, and the Korea Copyright Commission has presented opinions on this difference in this function to the Game Information Management Committee.