The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, from early April 2013 to May 14, 2013, the first enforcement part of the Act on misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A) provided game products in violation of the rating classification in the instant game room and carried out money exchange of game products (hereinafter “the first enforcement part”), the enforcement officers at the time of the first enforcement are aware that the seized articles under the pressure and 485 of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office, 2013 pressure and 2013 (hereinafter “the first seizure articles”) were owned by the Defendant and seized from G in the form of voluntary submission under Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act, with G, even though they were aware that they were owned by the Defendant. This is illegal seizure in violation of the warrant principle.

B) The evidence derived from the seizure of the first controlling part as it is unlawful and thus the admissibility of evidence is lost, and the evidence to prove this part of the facts charged is only the confession of the defendant. As such, the second controlling part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty. (A) From May 20, 2013 to May 28, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case, game products in violation of rating classification are provided in the instant game room and are engaged in the business of exchanging game results (hereinafter “the second controlling part”).

2) As to the seizure articles of No. 353 of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Deputy District Public Prosecutor’s Office, investigators, at the time of the second crackdown, arrested the Defendant as flagrant offenders (hereinafter “second seizure articles”).

Inasmuch as the first list of seized articles issued at the site of seizure and subsequent list of seized articles are different from the list of seized articles, the first list of seized articles is erroneous in the misapprehension of the time limit where the list of seized articles should be prepared and delivered.

In addition, it is unclear when the prosecutor applied for and issued a post warrant on the secondary confiscateds, and it is not presented to the defendant.

Therefore, the second.