Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is D's owner.

No game products related business entity shall allow others to gamble or perform other speculative acts using game products, or leave them to do so, and shall promote speculation by providing free gifts, etc.

Nevertheless, from December 4, 2012 to December 11:00, 2012, the Defendant: (a) installed and operated a general game room of “D” on the first floor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, in a general game room; and (b) provided three copies of the coophone called “20-minute free of charge” in the event of a customer who finds the game of “scocket,” and three copies of the coophone, “20-minute free of charge,” if the customer finds the game, and provided ten copies of the coophone, “20-minute free of charge,” and provided ten copies of the coophone to the customer by repurchasing the coophone free of charge so that the customer can charge points to the game machine or make the customer easily exchange them with free of charge.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. A written statement;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment to a game description);

1. Certificates of rating classification of game products and 20 percent coophones;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs of game rooms;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, and Articles 44 (1) 1 and 28 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Selection of Punishment and Promotion of Game Industry;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant thought that granting the defendant the right of a game score by reporting the prosecutor's non-guilty decision in a similar case and the court's acquittal decision was not illegal, and thus, the defendant was aware of illegality.