All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The lower court rendered each judgment of innocence on the charge of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act due to the violation of rating classification among the facts charged against the Defendants in the 2011 Highest 428 Incident, and sentenced each of the Defendants guilty and not guilty on the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act due to money exchange, and sentenced the Defendants A guilty on the whole facts charged in the 2012 Highest 393 Incident.

B. However, the Defendants did not file an appeal against the lower judgment (the Defendant A appealed on August 22, 2012, but withdrawn the appeal on August 30, 2012, and Defendant B and C appealed on August 13, 2012, and only the Prosecutor appealed on the ground of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquittal portion in the above case 201 high-class428. Thus, the conviction portion in the above 2011 high-class 428 case and the part in the above 2012 high-class 393 case are separate and final. The scope of the judgment of the lower court is limited to the acquittal portion in the above 201 high-class 428 case (the Defendant from around December 12, 2010 to March 4, 2011).

2. In light of the statements made by the Defendants to the “G” (hereinafter “the instant game room”), the statements made by the police officers at the time of the Defendants’ investigation, control and investigation, and the details of 112 reports, etc., the court below found that the Defendants, while establishing and operating 40 game machines in the instant game room, can be recognized that the Defendants obtained 10% of the amount entered in the oophone, which was the result of the Defendants’ acquisition of the game, deducted the 10% of the amount entered in the oophone, which was the result of the game and changed in cash, but acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and adversely affecting the conclusion

3. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant B, Defendant A, and C, of the game site of this case.