Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is to be disclosed to the Defendants.

1. The summary of the facts charged is those who work from "G" in Suwon-si F, Suwon-si, as an employee.

The Defendants provided 40 points and 40 points in the above G, which were acquired by customers, to be used by customers, and issued the membership card (storage card) by storing the points when the points are more than 20,000 points.

No one shall allow another person to gamble or perform other speculative acts, or leave another person to do so, using game products.

Nevertheless, at around 16:30 on July 23, 2014, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the Defendants to enter the said G as a customer, and the non-party I (the 59-years, males, and females) purchased KRW 10,000 in cash and KRW 15,000 points in cash to the non-party I (the 44-years, females) other customers, and when the non-party I demanded to call for the input of cash in the game machine No. G 30, the Defendants exchanged it by means of inserting KRW 15,000 in cash in the relevant game machine without confirming only the personal information of the non-party I who presented the membership card and confirming who uses the game machine No. 30.

As a result, the Defendants violated the obligations of game products related business operators by allowing customers to perform speculative acts using game products or by inducing them to do so.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the determination is insufficient to find the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged without any reasonable doubt.

(1) First of all, Articles 44(1)1 and 28 subparag. 2 of the Game Industry Promotion Act, which apply to the facts charged in the instant case, impose a certain punishment on “game products related business entity” with the duty of “not allowing others to gamble or perform other speculative acts, or not allowing them to do so, using game products” and impose a certain punishment if they violate this.

Therefore, the Defendants, who were employed by the J, a business operator of G at the time of the instant case, were the employees, were in violation of the said law by the J.