The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and by imprisonment for Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Since Defendant A is the owner of the game site of this case, the court below omitted the collection of additional charges against Defendant A, despite the fact that Defendant A was sentenced to additional collection, since Defendant A is the owner of the game site of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. In regard to Defendant B, the punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B (a prison term of four months, a suspended sentence of one year, and a community service period of 80 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination of the judgment of the court below, since the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. and the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below erred by omitting the weight of concurrent crimes by recognizing the Defendants guilty of all of the above crimes, despite Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants cannot be maintained any more.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A can recognize the fact that Defendant A received approximately KRW 400,000 per day by engaging in the business of exchanging the results obtained through the use of game products as the owner of the game of this case. This is subject to the necessary confiscation and collection pursuant to Article 44 (2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and thus, the court below's decision that did not sentence the collection is erroneous in the misapprehension