However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

As a kind of tobacco between the Defendants, the Defendants made and sold heavy tobacco with no certain occupation, divide the profits therefrom into half, and purchased equipment and raw materials, and started the business of manufacturing and selling tobacco without permission from January 1, 2017.

1. Any person who intends to operate a business of manufacturing tobacco without permission shall meet the standards for capital, facilities, technical human resources, research and development of technology for manufacturing tobacco, quality control for protecting national health, etc. and obtain permission from the Minister of Finance and Economy;

Nevertheless, on January 1, 2017, the Defendants manufactured 3,526 A (1) of the aforementioned tobacco from around 2017 to March 15, 2017 without obtaining a tobacco manufacturing business license, with one mincator, five ice ice, and one string machine, and using them to process tobacco as a raw material for tobacco.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to manufacture tobacco without obtaining permission for tobacco manufacturing business.

2. Any person who is not designated as a retailer of tobacco shall obtain a designation as a retailer from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the place of business in order to sell tobacco to consumers, and no person other than a retailer shall sell tobacco to consumers;

The Defendants, even though they were not designated as a tobacco retailer on January 4, 2017, received KRW 150,000 from sexually French E and sold tobacco manufactured by the same method as that of paragraph 1, and sold tobacco manufactured by the same method as that of paragraph 1, around that time, from around March 14, 2017 to around March 14, 2017, received total of KRW 3,526 (1 A 20 fee) as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to sell tobacco to consumers even though they are not retailers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police in relation to F;