The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 21(1)4 and (9) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 11139, Dec. 31, 2011), a person who provides or intends to provide game products for use or to distribute the game products, the rating classification of which through the Game Rating Committee is inappropriate due to the characteristics of the production main distribution process of the game products, etc. may conduct a self-rating according to separate standards, in lieu of receiving the rating from the Game Rating Committee, in consultation with the Game Rating Committee. However, even in such cases, the game products not permitted for use by juveniles according to the above criteria should be rated by

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the game of this case is a game product with a horse and its content itself constitutes a game product not permitted for use by juveniles and should be classified by the Game Rating Board, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal for misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles disputing such determination.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned relevant provisions and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the subject of rating, confiscation, and collection in violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.