2. In light of the fact that the defendants were in the trial of the court, the defendants recognized all of the facts charged of this case and reflected against the judgment of the court below, and the defendant Eul could have been employed by the defendant Gap without any economic situation and caused the crime of this case. However, there are considerable amounts of goods sold by the defendants in violation of the laws and regulations, such as the Door-to-Door Sales Act, etc. Meanwhile, there are several records of criminal punishment, including the defendant A, one fine due to the violation of the Health Functional Foods Act, one time, and several times of criminal punishment, and the defendant B has the record of being sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act one time as a result of the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the court below seems to have imposed a fine more reduced than the punishment of the summary order considering the favorable circumstances to the defendants. Since there is no special change in circumstances to change the punishment of the court below after the sentence of the court below, and considering the defendants' age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.