The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 30, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the Defendant was unable to provide free gifts exceeding KRW 5,000 from a man-made extraction room operated by the Defendant located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “D”); (b) in spite of the fact that the Defendant was not able to provide free gifts exceeding KRW 5,00,000, a type of 13,800, which is the market price, was put into a game machine and provided as free gifts.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the Defendant, while operating a game room in which he was selected, provided the Defendant as a gift in a game machine by putting in the scambuse type (hereinafter “the instant type”). On March 30, 2017, the Defendant searched bar codes attached to the instant type in a smartphone app at the time of control by the investigative agency on March 30, 2017, and confirmed that the online sales site was KRW 13,800.

However, the Defendant submitted the data that he purchased the instant seal form in KRW 4,800 per unit. The instant seal form differs from the figures sold on the Internet sales site, and it is difficult to view that the said amount is applied as it is. Meanwhile, in the process of investigation, an accusation is filed against the fact that the Defendant’s regular import licensing company of the instant seal type provides a person who is not a good in the game site, not a good in the investigative agency, and the content as indicated in the instant facts charged was contained in the instant facts charged. In full view of the fact that, in the process of investigation, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of the Defendant’s personal character type game was provided rather than a good, and if so, it is difficult to apply the above Internet sales site sales, it is difficult to readily conclude the fact that the instant seal type consumer sales price exceeds 5,00 won. There is no other evidence to support this.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is followed.