The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Where premiums offered for the game of this case does not exceed 5,00 won for the game of this case, and where the game of this case is relatively weak for the game of this case to promote speculation;

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or legal principles.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the gift offered to the game of this case exceeds 5,000 won per consumer selling price (the selling price at the general retail store) and the game of this case is recognized as gambling in the game of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) In light of the legislative purport of Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) and the language and text of the above Act, if premiums were to be provided in violation of the type, payment criteria, methods, etc. of premiums permissible pursuant to Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act”), which is directly prescribed as to whether a person encourages speculation pursuant to delegation under the above provision of the Act, it constitutes an act of providing premiums which encourages speculation prohibited pursuant to the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10565, Jun. 11, 2009). (2) In the instant game product, it is difficult to see that the probability of extracting a personal form is significantly different depending on the personal form, etc., and thus, it also constitutes a highly friendly game.

③ In the instant game product, in addition to the user’s ability to play, the probability of extracting races is significantly different depending on the precision and power level of the game itself, and the shape, weight, location, etc. of premiums, such as artificial manipulation by the game room for the type, weight, etc. of figures, and thus, it cannot be said that the game product of this case, which has a weak chance, is a game product.

(4) Articles 2 and 28 of the Act and Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act shall be applicable.