The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. The decision shall be made ex officio;

(1) The subject of the rating classification under the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) is the content of the game product or program itself, which is not the game product or program license itself, i.e., the contents of the game product content description attached thereto.

Therefore, the act of providing game products with contents different from the rating obtained” under Article 32(1)2 of the Game Industry Act includes not only the act of changing the contents of the application or the explanation attached thereto, but also the act of adding the important functions not indicated in the above application or explanation, but also the act of providing separate external organs, which is not likely to cause any change to the contents of the game products.

(2) The gist of the violation of the Game Industry Act among the facts charged in the instant case, which was found guilty by the first instance court on May 29, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12, May 29, 2014) and maintained by the lower court, is that “The Defendant provided 40 game machines, the game of which was modified to automatically run the game to customers regardless of the game users’ choice and manipulation ability, unlike the contents rated by the Game Rating Board while operating the game room

그런데 이 사건에서 채택된 증거들과 제1심 제1회 공판조서의 기재 등 기록에 의하면, 이 사건에서 피고인이 변조하여 제공하였다는 게임기의 게임 프로그램 자체는 변조되지 않았고, 피고인은 단지 게임기의 버튼 위에 올려놓고 스위치를 켜면 게임 이용자를 대신하여 버튼을 연속하여 눌러주는 장치인 이른바 ‘똑딱이’를 제공하였을 뿐인 것으로 보인다.

According to the above legal principles, the above acts alone are different from the contents of the Defendant’s rating.