1. The second original judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The original judgment of the first instance court (the first instance judgment) is unlawful to collect the collection from the Defendant for the portion on which D’s penphone medication was administered in addition to the Defendant.

B. Fact-finding (the second judgment of the court below) that the defendant paid or exchanged a points card to customers as stated in the facts charged, but the defendant was not well aware of the circumstances that the above card could be realized among customers, and there was no fact that the defendant promoted or recommended such fact. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act.

C. The lower court’s sentence (the first and second original judgment): imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight months, additional collection of KRW 400,000, and fine of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Although the judgment of this court rendered a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor against the defendant and each appeal case of the judgment of the judgment of the judgment of the court of first instance of the judgment of the court of second instance of which the judgment of the court of second instance sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor was decided to concurrently examine the appeal case, the court maintained

Therefore, this court does not ex officio reverse the judgment of the court below on the ground of the consolidated hearing, and the judgment below is judged separately.

The judgment of the court of first instance on the allegation of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the allegation on the judgment of the court of first instance is based on the following facts: “The defendant 1 administered a penphone once, ② uses a penphone to D once, ③ administer it once in collusion with D,” and the court of first instance calculated the additional collection amount for the defendant by applying the retail price of 100,000 won for each unit of the crime.”

Confiscation or additional collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. is not aimed at deprivation of profits from criminal acts, but rather a disposition of punitive nature, so no profit has been acquired due to such crime.

(b)if any;