Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a vocational game in the F Gameland on the second floor of the building of Ulsan-gu E, Ulsan-gu, the general management of the game site, and exchange to customers. Defendant B entered the points of customers in the game machine in the above gameland, entered the points obtained by them in the series, and added the game machine and made customers request money exchange, the employee who delivers the series to Defendant A, with the intention to operate the money exchange game site.

Defendants conspired to commit the same month from March 15, 2017.

4. Until March 3, 200, by setting up 40 game machine in the above gameland and 24 game machine for scalum scalum scalum scalum scalum scalum scalums to many unspecified customers, and customers exchanged 10,000 won per 10,000 won per share of the card realized on the screen to customers without money exchange.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each statement;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing photographs, money exchange pages, video CDs at the time of crackdown;

1. Article 44 (1) 2 and Article 32 (1) 7 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with labor, concerning facts constituting a crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. (Defendant A) Article 44 (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act;

1. Taking account of the fact that: (a) the reason for sentencing under Article 44(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry is large in size of the head of the game of this case; (b) exchange of money was ever conducted; and (c) Defendant B’s past records of having been punished twice due to the same crime are disadvantageous standing members; (d) Defendant A’s period of operation of the game of this case was limited to a short term in the case of Defendant A; and (e) Defendant B’s fixed employee was not involved in the operation of the game of this case.