The appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not substantially operate the Company B, which is the general marketing company of T, and distributed T game products without knowing that T game products were produced with a speculative content different from the content of the classification, and did not compete with the manufacturer of the game products.

Since the profit substantially reverted to the defendant is KRW 145,62,659, the amount of additional collection should be limited to the above amount. Even if the profit actually reverted to the defendant is calculated by the accounting of the stock company B, only KRW 121,352,216, which is 364,056,648, which is the remainder after deducting not only the total amount of the purchase tax invoice from the total amount of the sales tax invoice, but also the other expenses

The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, additional collection) against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not know that X-Y game products were produced differently from the content of the rating classification, and distributed them without being conspired with the game products producers.

The game is not a speculative machine.

The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, additional collection) against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D. Each of the instant game works (T, X, Y) in this case, misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles, or each of the instant game works (T, X, Y) is not changed to have the same or different functions, but is not a speculative machine, even if it does not have an illegal or different function.

Defendant

D As a representative director under the name of AB and sales chain Co., Ltd. I, the game product of this case constitutes a principal offender, and thus, it is unfair to collect an amount equivalent to profit from each of the game products of this case. The calculation of the amount equivalent to profit from each of the game products of this case is also illegal.

Defendant D of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing: imprisonment of one year, additional collection, Defendant E: imprisonment of one year and six months, and additional collection.