2. Determination

A. The Defendant Company A’s business size is considerable and multiple sales clerks have joined, and the Defendant’s business has been conducted for a long period of not less than one year is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the fact that the amount of profit acquired is not so significant, and that there is no salesperson or consumer asserting that there has been any special damages due to the Defendant’s business operations, etc., the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, including the circumstances after the crime, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing against the Defendant A corporation of the Defendant by the public prosecutor is rejected.

B. The fact that Defendant B’s multi-level marketing organization’s business size is considerable and multiple sales clerks have joined, and that business has been conducted for a long period of not less than one year is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the fact that the acquired amount of profit seems not to be substantial, there is no salesperson or consumer asserting that there was no special damage caused by the Defendant’s business operation, and that there was no record of criminal punishment other than once a fine is imposed on the Defendant, etc., considering the circumstances leading to the instant crime, including the details and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, occupation, and occupation, etc., and there is no change in the circumstances where the sentence is to be imposed differently between the lower court and the lower court.