Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for five months, and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

C Since April 21, 2014, a business owner operating a “F Gameland” registered in the name of business operator from Ulsan-gu D and the third floor E. Defendant B and G are the employees of the above game site, and Defendant A enter the above game site.

No one shall exchange, arrange for exchange or repurchase tangible and intangible results obtained through the use of game products as a business.

Nevertheless, from March 2015 to March 25, 2016, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the above game site, from March 2015 to March 25, 2016, Defendant B and G entered the points obtained through the game in the account of A after verifying the points obtained by customers in the game machine, and Defendant A calculated the points as one won per point, and paid 10% of them in cash on the fee basis. Defendant C exchanged the tangible and intangible results obtained by customers through the use of the game.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Examination protocol of Defendant C by the prosecution;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing video CDs on the exchange page;

1. Relevant Articles 44 (1) 2 and 32 (1) 7 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry concerning criminal facts, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations as follows);

1. (Defendant C) The reason for sentencing of Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act is that the size of the game room of this case is considerable (50 game machine) and the game result illegally exchangeds the game result and encourages speculation, and that it did not reflect the crime while denying the fact of money exchange in the police investigation process.

However, the defendants' late and reflects the crime of late late, and in the case of the defendants C and A, they were led to exchange activities.