All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Article 32(1)7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) prohibits an act of converting game outcomes into money. Here, “business” means continuing to repeat the same act. In a case where a person continues to engage in such business with intent to continue to engage in such business, such act constitutes a case where “business” is deemed a business, and such act constitutes “business” and even if it does not constitute “money exchange” for profit, etc.

Defendant

In full view of the facts as follows: (a) at the time of the crackdown B, the IC card used in the game machine was 10 Chapters 10 and 1,124,00 won; (b) the game room customers E and F were designated as Defendant B’s “exchange Prize”; (c) both the E and F were exchanged with Defendant B; (d) according to the contents of the currency between the Defendants, there is a possibility that Defendant B would have exchanged with Defendant B in the game room after receiving the phone from Defendant A, etc.; and (c) Defendant A was aware of the fact that Defendant B had done money exchange with other customers; and (d) Defendant B made a statement to the purport that Defendant A was aware that there was money exchange in the game room; and (e) Defendant B was able and assisted to money exchange by facilitating the act of money exchange.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge the instant facts charged, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) The Game Industry Act does not prohibit game outcomes from engaging in activities, such as daily exchange, not "business". Defendant B does not enjoy games as customers.