Of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the part on each of the defendant B and the judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court [the defendants A: imprisonment of one year, confiscation and additional collection; imprisonment of eight months and additional collection (the first instance judgment); imprisonment of four months (the second instance judgment); imprisonment of four months; imprisonment of six months; suspended execution of two years; imprisonment of two years; community service, confiscation and additional collection; imprisonment of eight hours; confiscation and additional collection; Defendant R] is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unlawful and misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to Defendant A) asserts that the grounds for appeal against Defendant A are unfair of sentencing, and the reason for appeal also asserts that additional collection is unfair of sentencing. The prosecutor’s appeal against this part of the Prosecutor’s appeal is based on the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to additional collection.

Defendant

The sentence of the court below against A is too unhued and unreasonable.

In addition, since the profit acquired by Defendant A through the operation of the game of this case is equivalent to KRW 16 million (i.e., KRW 1 million per day x 16 days), the surcharge imposed on Defendant A should be KRW 16 million.

2. Before determining ex officio as to the reasons for appeal by Defendant B (as to Defendant B), this Court held ex officio the appeal case against Defendant B, and this Court held the appeal case by combining the judgment of the court below against Defendant B, and as to each of the offenses of the judgment of the court below which was consolidated in the trial of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each of them shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, in this regard, the parts of the judgment of the court below No. 1 and the judgment of the court below No. 2 as to each of Defendant B

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the amount of additional collection against Defendant A), Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act is based on the game products owned or occupied by a person falling under Article 44(1) of the same Act, and on the profits from such criminal act (hereinafter “criminal proceeds”).