The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who, as of September 15, 201, takes over a general game room from C, a professional owner, registers a general game providing business from Gangseo-gu Office as of September 19, 201, and operates a business which, within the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s located “E Game Site,” installs 100 game equipment and provides it to many and unspecified persons.

No one shall provide game products for the distribution or use, the contents of which are different from those classified by the Game Rating Board, or display or store such products for such purposes.

Nevertheless, from September 15, 201 to October 18, 2011, the Defendant added an example function different from that of the time of being classified into the game of the said establishment “Oshion car” to the game of the said establishment, and provided customers with the game products showing that the Defendant continuously won the winning until it reaches the prescribed score when it appears in the screen.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record of judgment, namely, the F Company G produced the “Oshion car” game product with an example function as indicated in the instant facts charged, and received a rating from the Game Rating Board on October 29, 2010; the Defendant provided the game product “Oshion car” to customers in the status of being rated, and did not subsequently make any changes, etc. to the game product thereafter; the aforementioned “Osha” game product was revoked on December 21, 201 on the ground that it applied for the rating on the ground that the aforementioned example function was concealed and applied for the rating from the Game Rating Board on December 21, 2011 (F Company G filed an administrative litigation against the above revocation disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap43683), there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant used the game product different from the content of the rating received by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.