The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

The summary of the facts charged is a game product, the result of which is determined by an incidental method, and it refers to providing property benefits depending on the result, and it shall not engage in speculative activities as a business using a "speculative electronic machine".

The term "game products" is a speculative game product in which the user selects one of the six pages arranged on the left side of the screen and then selects in accordance with the nine paintings drawn on the right side operated by the acrylic prior method, and then obtains points by winning in the game (the chance of the game), and the points obtained by winning in the game are to be paid directly in the game machine (the direct compensation for the result of the game) if they coincide with the highest one among the said nine parts, and the points obtained by winning in the game are to be paid directly in the game machine (the chance of the game).

1. Defendant A’s violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. by Defendant A from April 12, 2013

9. By December 24, 200, in the F Gameland on the second floor in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, a 104 game for the above “mail recognition business” was established, and an unspecified number of customers finding the place used the above body recognition business game in the above manner, and directly paid one gift gift per 5,000 points (market price equivalent to 2,50 won) obtained according to the incidental result.

In particular, the above books included “B” and the value of exchange was given, so it functioned as giving direct economic benefits to the outcome of the game work by allowing money exchange through the gold banks and the Buddhist money exchange, etc., and the customers finding the above business was in a situation in which they use the game work for the purpose of acquiring the above books.

Accordingly, the defendant was engaged in speculative activities using speculative gaming machines.

2. Defendant B’s aiding and abetting Defendant B from around August 24, 2013 in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc.

9. As an employee employed by a defendant A from the date of February 24, 198 and assist him.