The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the forms and legal interests of Article 44(1)1-2 of the Game Industry Act, which provides that the act of promoting speculation by providing free gifts, etc. not in compliance with the criteria for the payment of free gifts prescribed by the Presidential Decree in violation of Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”), shall be deemed to be a separate crime for each act of providing free gifts. In light of the fact that each act of providing free gifts should be deemed to be established. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s act of providing free gifts in excess of KRW 5,00 and offered legitimate free gifts not exceeding KRW 5,00 in excess of KRW 5,00, the instant facts charged constitute a separate crime against the Defendant, which is separate from the charges of the instant case pending in the appellate trial (hereinafter “prior case”). Thus, the prosecution of this case does not constitute a double indictment.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the dismissal of prosecution on the premise that the facts charged in this case and the facts charged in the preceding case constitute double prosecution, and thus, it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of acceptance of crime.

Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principles of prosecutor

(a) Where a number of acts constituting the name of the same crime continues to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of these acts must be punished by a single comprehensive crime; however, where the unity and continuity of the criminal's intent are not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not the same, each of the crimes constitutes substantive concurrent crimes.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8645 Decided November 11, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2018Do10779 Decided November 29, 2018, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1079, Nov. 29, 20

In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred.