2. Determination

A. The lower court appears to have determined the punishment in light of all the following circumstances, and there was no change in circumstances in the judgment of the lower court regarding the argument regarding the principal penalty.

In addition, in consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the background and means of the crime, Defendant A’s career, sexual behavior, environment, etc., each sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair as it is too unfortunate.

Defendant

A is subject to a fine of the same kind.

The sales from the instant crime amounting to approximately KRW 150 million.

However, the defendant A is against his fault.

The criminal period of the Defendants was relatively short, and all the goods sold by the Defendants were normal products.

B. Whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to the determination of the claim on the portion of collection, or the recognition of the amount of collection, etc. is not related to the elements of crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove strict evidence, but also, if it is difficult to identify the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection, it shall not be collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). Furthermore, since the collection under Article 10 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds is arbitrary, it shall be entrusted to the court’s discretion to determine whether the collection would be possible even if the property falls under the requirements of collection, (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007). In this case, the criminal proceeds acquired by the Defendants through the crime of this case shall be limited to the total amount of products subject to false or exaggerated advertisements, but to the total amount of manufacturing costs, etc., which have been deducted from the sales proceeds from false or exaggerated advertisements.