All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, allowing the use of a game with a different score system from the content of the rating examination cannot be deemed as providing a game product that differs from the content of the rating examination for use. 2) The Defendants did not know well the contents of the game provided in the instant game site, and thus did not have any intention or illegality as to the provision of a game product that differs from the content of the rating classification.

3) There was no money exchange in the instant game site. 4) The Defendants, as an employee in the instant game site, are merely aiding and abetting criminals, since they performed a work and received a benefit by receiving instructions from A, B, etc. as an employee.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (each imprisonment of eight months, a suspended sentence of two years, a probation, and a community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. 1) and 2) As to the assertion, the Defendants asserted the above purport in the lower court.

The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion and its determination in detail, and convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that the Defendants’ assertion and its determination were stated in detail.

In addition to the circumstances cited by the lower court, the lower court’s decision is sufficiently acceptable in full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

① Defendant C, upon undergoing the prosecutor’s investigation, made a specific statement on the operating method of the “Nuriba” and the “Yacheon Franchisium” game provided in the game of this case (Evidence No. 185), and Defendant D also put into money in the prosecutor’s investigation.