The judgment below

The part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B, respectively, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Scope of trial on Defendant B

A. Of the facts charged against the above Defendant, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act due to the exchange of tangible and intangible results (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”), and found the Defendant guilty of all the charges on the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry due to the offer of free gifts, etc., and sentenced the Defendant to five months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution.

B. As to this, the prosecutor appealed to the judgment of the court below, including the part of the above defendant's acquittal, and the Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Metropolitan Government dismissed the prosecutor's appeal on the part of the above acquittal, and the judgment below reversed the conviction part of the above defendant in the judgment of the court below on the ground that the subject of the judgment was changed by permitting the prosecutor's application for changes in indictment of the guilty portion, and acquitted the violation of the Game Industry Act due to the provision of free gifts, etc.

(c)

With respect to the judgment of the judgment of the Seoul metropolitan center, only the prosecutor filed a second appeal against the acquittal of the violation of the Act on Game Industry due to the provision of the above free gifts, etc., and the Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor's appeal against this judgment, and reversed the part of the violation of the Act on Game Industry due to the provision of the above free gifts, etc. among the judgment of the Seoul metropolitan center, and remanded

(d)

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the violation of the Act on the Game Industry due to exchange of tangible and intangible results against the above defendant is confirmed separately from the final appeal part of the judgment of the court below because the prosecutor did not appeal, so the scope of trial after remand is limited to the violation of the Act on the Game Industry due to the provision of free gifts, etc.

2. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal proves that the goods seized against the Defendant A were false or misleading.