A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (influence of fraud) (i.e., contents advertised by the Defendant is permissible under the general commercial transaction practices and the good faith principle, and it cannot be deemed as a deception of fraud.

See even if the contents of the Defendant’s advertisement constitute deception, the victims purchased the instant sets due to the above advertisement.

Therefore, there is no relation between the above deception and the victim's disposal act.

Secondly, even if the defendant's act constitutes fraud, fraud is established only for net profit, not as a whole sales amount of the corporation B.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In relation to the fact of fraud against the Defendant at the trial of the party, the prosecutor held that the name of the crime was “Habitual Fraud”, and that the Defendant, “The Defendant, by deceiving the consumers by the aforementioned false advertisements, sold 135,093 Internet online shopping malls from around that time to August 31, 2015, sold 3,783,096,840 won in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, from around 11 to August 31, 2015.

“The Defendant, habitually, by means of the aforementioned false advertisements, deceiving victims in Gmarket, etc., which is an Internet shopping mall, and received KRW 25,200 as sales proceeds from the victim AB on August 2, 2013. The Defendant, from around that time, received KRW 27,500 from the victim AB on August 31, 2015, and acquired the total amount of KRW 3,783,096,840, as shown in the list of crimes committed in the attached Table, such as receiving KRW 27,50 from the victim AB to receive KRW 27,50 under the same name.

Article 351 of the Criminal Act was added to "The court below's judgment was no longer maintained as it is because the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission."

3. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion