The sentence against the accused shall be 5,000,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. In fact, it is true that a advertisement (hereinafter “instant advertisement”) as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, based on the case of C which the defendant does not have any record, constitutes a deception, since it falls under the scope permitted under general commercial practices.

Dor, as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the holding of the court below, the Defendant stated that “if he supplies things to the victim D, he shall incur a profit of KRW 3 million or KRW 4 million per month.”

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million at the Seoul Eastern District Court on October 10, 2012 and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time, on the grounds that the facts constituting the above final judgment and the facts charged in this case are identical to a series of cases, the lower court convicted the Defendant without dismissing the instant public prosecution.

C. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The deception of the instant advertisement as a requirement for fraud is any affirmative and passive act that causes mistake to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in the transactional relationship with property, and the essence of fraud is the acquisition of property or pecuniary gains by deception, and the other party’s real property damage is not the requirement. In general, the mere exaggeration or falsity in the publicity of goods and advertisement would be lacking to the extent that it might be acceptable in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle.