The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A seized space transfer.

1. Grounds for appeal ① The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable, and ② the game machine (No. 1 and No. 2) confiscated by the lower court is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation, even though it was not related to the money exchange act itself, which is the crime of this case.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 32(1)7 and 44(1) and (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”), with respect to the assertion that the confiscation of a game machine is illegal, a person who conducts a business of exchanging or mediating money or repurchaseing tangible and intangible results (referring to score, premiums, virtual currency used in the game, and things similar thereto prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as game money and money similar thereto prescribed by Presidential Decree) obtained through the use of the game product shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, and the game products owned or occupied by the person corresponding thereto shall be confiscated, and if such confiscation is impossible, the equivalent amount shall be additionally collected.

In light of the legislative purport of the Game Industry Promotion Act, such as the contents of each provision above, the eradicating of speculative game products, and the creation of a healthy game culture, game products owned or occupied by a person who conducts an act of converting into money or arranging exchange or re-purchase of tangible and intangible outcomes obtained through the use of game products in violation of Article 32(1)7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act shall be subject to the necessary confiscation stipulated under Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, insofar as it is deemed that the game products contributed substantially to the performance of the act in question (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006). In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in this case, 30 game machines in the Space War (No. 1) and 30 Grand Game Games (No. 2) that were confiscated by the court below is the violator of the above provision.