The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ABC raling game of this case, which is a game product of this case, is inappropriate for prior classification from the Rating Board due to the production entity of the game product, characteristics of the distribution process, etc.; thus, it does not constitute game products not constitute game products permitted for use by juveniles. As such, pursuant to the proviso of Article 21(1) and Article 21(4) of the Game Industry Promotion Act and Article 11-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

(No Rating Board is classified by the Korea Rating Board). The Defendant believed that the instant game product was classified as “at least 17 years of age” and received a rating.

Furthermore, since customers have used the game product of this case by themselves, the defendant does not provide the game product of this case for use.

2. Article 21(1) and the proviso to Article 21(4) of the Promotion of the Game Industry Act provides that in the case of game products not permitted for use by juveniles, even if they are manufacturers of game products, they cannot conduct their own classification and receive classification from the Korean Rating Board.

The game product of this case is a game product with a horse gathering and its content itself constitutes a game product not permitted for use by juveniles, and according to the reply of the Committee on Rating of Game Products as a result of appraisal by the Committee on Rating of Game Products, the "JONGMA" of the same kind as the game product of this case constitutes a game product not permitted for use by juveniles. The game product of this case can be seen equally as the game product of this case.

See 13 of the evidence records, the defendant's assertion that the game work of this case is subject to the U.S. § 13 of the evidence record is not acceptable.

Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant charged 200 points per full cost to the users and the users of the game product of this case using points.