1) The game machine, as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “the instant game machine”) is a key function of automatic sales and a recreation function is provided only with incidental functions. Thus, the instant game machine does not constitute the game product subject to classification.

2) B sold the instant game machine to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, filed the instant game machine patent application with “a vending machine providing additional services,” and received a safety confirmation certificate indicating the name of the instant game machine as “shot machine” from the head of the Korea Testing and Research Institute for Electric Machinery, and obtained a certificate of completion of registration from the head of the national radio research institute to the effect that the instant game machine does not constitute game products under the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”).

The defendant does not constitute a crime even if he provides the game of this case to customers for their use, which was not classified as rating by presenting the above related data from B.

This mistake constitutes a mistake in the law that has a legitimate reason.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court whether the instant game machine constitutes “game product” under the Game Industry Act, it is reasonable to view that the instant game machine installed by the Defendant constitutes a game product under the Game Industry Act.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

1) e.g.