Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and for six months, respectively.

However, between two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates the F Game Chapter in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu and 301, and Defendant B is an employee employed by the above A in the F Game Chapter.

Defendant

B on February 7, 2018, the head of the game in question, and the direction of Defendant A, the head of the game in question, and the head of the G, etc. who found the place, allowed customers such as G, etc. to use the 46 unit of the Google game machine, the rating of which was denied because it constitutes a speculative game product.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to provide game water, the rating classification of which is denied because it constitutes a private game product.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each statement of H, G, and I prepared;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. A copy of lease agreement;

1. Tax information on game products;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 44(1)2, Article 32(1)4, and Article 22(2) of the Act on the Promotion of respective Game Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the selection of punishment for imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for the suspension of execution;

1. Defendant A of a community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A: The reason for sentencing under Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act is that the crime of this case is highly harmful to society, such as that the public’s awareness of work and promotion of speculative deliberation, etc.; the Defendants committed the crime of this case despite the fact that the Defendants had the record of punishment for the same kind of crime, thereby leading to the crime of this case; in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants, the Defendants are all aware of each of the crimes of this case, and

The Defendants stated that the profits acquired by the instant crime were not significant. In the case of Defendant B, each of the circumstances favorable to the Defendants that the degree of participation in the instant crime was relatively minor. In addition, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and trial process, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.