All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) on the grounds stated in its reasoning, which is different from the rating of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the court below's maintenance of the first instance court ordering the defendant to pay 53,385,000 won to the defendant is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the calculation of additional collection charges.

In addition, since Article 45 subparag. 4 and Article 32(1)2 of the Game Industry Act, which are the grounds for the punishment of this case, cannot be seen as unconstitutional, the argument in the grounds of appeal disputing this cannot be accepted.

Meanwhile, the argument that there was an error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation in the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the ground for appeal or that it was not subject to

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor in light of the records, it is justifiable to maintain the first instance court that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is no proof of criminal facts regarding the violation of the Game Industry Act from among the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the calculation of additional collection charges is the reason for appeal or the court below is the object of judgment ex officio.