1. All of the defendant's appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding column of the first instance judgment.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Each game machine listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Plaintiffs’ Schedule is owned by Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B for each game machine listed in paragraphs 3 of the same Schedule.

(2) The Defendant, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1-3, indicated in the separate sheet No. 1-3 as the “instant No. 1 Game.” (hereinafter “instant game machine”). However, as seen in the underlying facts of the judgment of the first instance cited by the court of the instant judgment, the Defendant, as seen in the judgment of the first instance, refers to three convictions sentenced to CF.

In this case, each game machine of this case without title can be occupied on the ground that the game machine of this case was confiscated.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek against the Defendant the delivery of each game machine of this case.

B. Defendant 1) Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs was comprehensive, each of the instant games cannot be deemed to be owned by the Plaintiffs (the determination on this point is deemed to be set forth in paragraph 3 below). 2) Although the Plaintiffs perceived that C and F were engaged in illegal business activities using each of the instant games, they constitute accomplices who provided them with each of the instant games.

Therefore, according to the effect of confiscation ordered by each judgment of this case, the defendant has the right to possess each game of this case.

(3) Each game of this case is highly likely to cause harm by undermining the desire to work and inducing speculative spirit. When returning each game of this case, the same crime may be repeated. Accordingly, each game of this case is not subject to destruction (see, e.g., paragraph 5 below). Although the Defendant’s statement of grounds of appeal is not contained, it is submitted during the first instance trial.