The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) “F” (hereinafter “F”) does not need to be classified as the addition of only the functions of the H’s game machine to which the previous rating was classified. In light of the fact that the Defendant believed the horses of G, the representative director of the game machine providing company’s game machine that does not need to be classified as the class, provided the instant game machine to customers, and there is no talk about whether G’s addition and the change of screen were made to the Defendant, there is no intention to provide the Defendant with the ungraded game machine to customers.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) The instant game machine is a game machine with more than 270 images changed in addition to that added to the existing “H” game machine; (b) thus, it cannot be deemed as the same game machine as “H,” and accordingly, it is necessary to classify the instant game machine as a rating to provide it for the use; and (c) the Defendant’s “H” test.

Although the fact that the “C” answer to the question is deemed to be true, the G added the name of the Defendant and the screen was changed.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was aware that the pertinent game product was a game product for testing purposes by attaching a certificate of confirmation to the game product for testing purposes; and (b) the Defendant provided the game product for use without attaching such certificate; (c) the Defendant was found guilty of the facts charged on the ground that at least the instant game machine was provided for use by recognizing that it was a game machine for which rating was not classified.