1. The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.

2. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (Defendant B) said Defendant is merely a simple employee who did not take overall control of the burial of the game site of this case. B. Sentencing unfair sentencing (the Defendants) sentenced by the lower court (the two years of suspended execution of six months of imprisonment, community service work 120 hours, and Defendant C: 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants ex officio, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act by providing game products different from the game products classified as ratings; (b) a violation of Article 45 subparag. 4 and Article 32 subparag. 1 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Punishment of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry concerning the Punishment of Acts of Providing game products; and (c) a violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry by providing game products different from the game products classified as ratings, based on the constituent requirements and form of each provision under Articles 44 subparag. 1 subparag. 2 and 32(1)7 of the Act on the Punishment of Act on the Promotion of Game Industry concerning the Punishment of Acts of Using Game Products as a result of the use of game products; and (d) a violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry by using game products due to the game products as a result of the exchange of game products,

The Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12650 Decided January 28, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12650, Jan. 28, 2010). Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the Defendants as the use and provision of game water different from the rated game water and the fact of the business of exchanging the game result, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Promotion of

As such, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the relation of crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

B. Even if the judgment of the court below on the Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court.