The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Nos. 1 through 4 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's punishment (two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable;

2. The judgment exchange act needs to be strictly punished because it facilitates the business of an illegal game room that encourages speculation, and above all, considering the fact that the defendant had already been punished for the same kind of crime despite the fact that he had committed another crime in the investigation process, and attempted to return to the witness who has reported himself by actively denying the crime in the investigation process, and that he still failed to properly disclose the circumstances leading to the participation in the crime even after confession in the original trial, the defendant should be sentenced to a punishment.

However, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime after prosecution and the circumstances of the defendant's participation in the crime in the crime in this case are sufficiently insufficient, six months of the sentence sentenced by the court below seems to be somewhat unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 44(1)2 and Article 32(1)7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act regarding criminal facts and Articles 44(1)2 and 32(1)1 of the Act on the Selection of Game Industry (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) stated by the lower court as the pertinent law for criminal facts are penal provisions for “providing game products that have not been rated for distribution or use, or displaying or keeping them for that purpose.” Although the indictment of this case is applicable mutatis mutandis, there are applicable provisions in the indictment of this case.