Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, for ten months, and for one year, for Defendant C.

except that this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

No game products-related business entity shall provide game products for the distribution or use of, or display or store, a game product with any content different from the game rating, and no one shall exchange, arrange for exchange or re-purchase of, or conduct business of purchasing, any tangible or intangible outcome obtained through the use of the game product.

Nevertheless, the Defendants from June 18, 2017 to the same year.

7. From October to June, 10, in the Daegu Dong-gu F and 6’G “G”, the game water management committee separately inputs a secret pattern into the machine installed inside the game machine, unlike the contents classified by the game water management committee, 40 games opened and altered by providing separate settlement windows, and Defendant C as the owner of the business. Defendant B as the manager, Defendant A, as the chief of the management department, managed the above game room in the first place, and Defendant A, as the chief of the branch office, had many unspecified customers who found the place, input cash into the game machine, and exchanged the game score obtained as one won per point.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to offer a game product different from the contents of the game rating to unspecified customers for use, and exchanged game scores which are the result obtained through the use of the game product.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

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

1. Responses with the results of appraisal;

1. Recording notes of a recording file;

1. Daily settlement data (the Defendants and the defense counsel acknowledged the fact that the Defendants provided a game different from the rating that the Defendants received, but did not exchange the game;

However, according to the above evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendants separately conduct the business of this case and let customers exchange in accordance with the points they acquired.

The Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion.