All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Defendant A: (a) committed the crime of aiding and abetting Ha et al. by introducing the J with regard to the crime of “G Team”; (b) did not participate in the crime of “R Team” as a joint principal offender; and (c) did not engage in any act related to the above crime, including the commencement of an export business, including cosmetics, after February 2015, even though the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case.

2) Although Defendant B produced and distributed the instant game water program, the Defendant did not produce or distribute the black PC PC or machine. The Defendant’s quantity produced and distributed the program is not less than 1,200 game machine in total 30 locations, and the Defendant did not have any connection with the manufacture and sale of multiple card or machine, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Legal principles are erroneous (Defendant A) where the game of this case is a game product with speculative nature, the act of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act is not established, and where the game product of this case is a game product with no speculative character, the crime of violating Articles 44(1)1 and 28(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act is established only when the game product was operated in the case of a game product with no speculative character, and the method of use constitutes a speculative machine. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of all of the violations of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. and the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry even though it cannot be subject to punishment under Article 30(1)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc., and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles.

(c)

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is unfair (defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, confiscation, and Defendant B.