The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of facts. The game of this case does not constitute a speculative game, and the Defendant set aside the points obtained from the game machine on the card and did not act as a broker or intermediary for cash exchange or exchange. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without aiding and abetting it.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August, 200, observation of protection, and community service time in 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 28 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) provides that “A game water-related business entity shall comply with the following matters,” and subparagraph 2 of the same Article provides that “No one shall allow another person to engage in gambling or other speculative acts, or to leave such things, using game water.” Article 44(1)1 of the Game Industry Act provides that a person who violates Article 28 subparag. 2 of the same Act shall be punished.

The term "speculative act" as referred to in the above provision means an act of determining the acquisition and loss by an incidental method and causing loss or profit to the person who committed the act.

Therefore, in order to constitute a speculative act prescribed in the above provision, certain economic benefits or losses may be incurred. If a certificate issued by a game providing business operator to a game user using the game classified as the result of the game has property value that can be distributed among the game users, such as a kind of bearer security, it shall be deemed as such property interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do15929, Sept. 13, 2013; 2013Do9173, Sept. 26, 2013).