No. 1 Of the judgment of the court below, No. 2 to 8 of the list of offenses as indicated in the judgment of the court below and No. 3 to 12 of the list of offenses.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is inappropriate, as it is too unreasonable, that the court below's punishment (No. 1: the year No. 1; the year No. 2; the year No. 2; the year No. 1; the year No. 2 through No. 8; the year No. 2; the year No. 3 through No. 12; and the year No. 3 through No. 4; the year No. 3: the year no. 4; the year No. 3 of the daily inundation of the crime; and the year No. 2 through No. 4 of the court below's judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the judgment of the court below as to the defendant's ex officio as to the part of the crime Nos. 1, 2 and 8, Nos. 3 through 12, Nos. 3 and 2 through 4, and the part of the crime Nos. 2 and 2, and the judgment of the court below as to the judgment of the court below as to the crime Nos. 1, 2, and the defendant filed each appeal, and this court decided to hold the above two appeals together.

In this regard, after the judgment on a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act as stated in the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive, the crimes of the defendant's crime No. 2 through No. 8 of the sight table 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 3 through No. 12 of the crime sight table 2 of the crime, and No. 2 through No. 4 of the crime sight table 3 of the crime committed and the crime of the second won resolution of the judgment of the court of second instance shall be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the parts of the crime No. 1, No. 2-8, No. 3-12, No. 3, and No. 2-4, and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained as they are, among the judgment of the court of first instance.

B. Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the defendant's judgment as to the wrongful argument of sentencing as to each part of the crimes in the year No. 1, No. 2, No. 1,2, and No. 3 of the crime sight table 2, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, is that the defendant recognized, reflected, and did not repeat the crime.

It is recognized that the defendant does not have the same criminal record, and that the defendant could have received judgment simultaneously with the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry for which judgment has become final and conclusive.