Defendants are innocent.

1. From March 24, 2015, Defendant A was an actual business owner registered for the business of manufacturing Internet game facilities from the Ulsan-dong Office, Ulsan-gu E 23.4m-gu, Ulsan-gu, and the trade name of “F”. Defendant B was an employee from October 2, 2015 to the said business owner.

A person is prohibited from distributing, providing for use, displaying, or storing any game product different from the game product classified as a rating. However, the Defendants conspired with the Defendants, from October 2, 2015 to October 19, 2015, to October 20, 2015, Defendant B provided game with A with a game machine connected with A’s A’s ID and password by charging the game machine without directly charging the game machine, which is a different method from the classification of the class (CC-NP-150702-04) by the KCA from October 2, 2015 to October 19, 202.

Defendant

A, when Defendant B, an employee of the said temporary border, received money from the customer, he/she provided the customer with the ID and password after filling the coophone that he/she purchased in advance from the customer.

2. Determination

A. 1) Interpretation of penal laws and regulations ought to be strict, and it is not permitted because it excessively expands or analogical interpretation of the meaning of penal laws and regulations in the direction unfavorable to the defendant violates the principle of statutoryism (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013). 2) The subject of grading classification under the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”) is not the game products or programs itself, but the contents of the game products, namely, the contents of the game products, which are attached thereto.

Therefore, according to Article 32, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Game Industry Act, game products with contents different from the classification received are used.