The defendant shall announce the summary of the decision of innocence.

1. The Defendant, in collusion with employees C, provided the content different from the content of the rating that the Defendant provided to unspecified customers, unlike the content of the rating classification, in order to determine the result according to the user’s actual ability, in setting up 30 computers and providing online games “franchising,” in collusion with employees C, from August 31, 2010 to September 2, 2010.

2. Although the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that the defendant and his defense counsel provided the game by means of automatic practice programs (G Macro), the defendant did not change the game product or install an external program so that the game can be carried out automatically.

Therefore, the defendant's case should have been prosecuted for the first time according to the police's opinion, so the defendant's indictment should be pronounced not guilty.

3. Determination

A. The position of the Game Rating Board is divided into two categories: (1) The automatic running of the game product and the relationship between the defendant case are ① the case where a separate program, which functions as a simple division of keyboard and Mas on behalf of a specific server, is operated (no provision different from the contents of the rating, because it is not a change of contents) and ② the case where a game is operated by using a specific key in the game or by making a signal dividing key, scam, mas, etc. in the game (the contents of the game are different from the contents of the rating that the contents of the game are changed because of the existence of automatic function in the game).

(2) On February 2, 2012, the defendant's case is a case of operating game products using the automatic implementation program (GMroc), and the existence of an external program is judged to be a irregular operation, not a change in the contents of the game products (Investigation Records No. 124, 145).