The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant did not sell tobacco as stated in each of the facts charged of this case, and did not engage in tobacco sales business in light of the frequency and circumstances of provision, etc., and the lower court convicted all of the facts charged of this case.

Unfair sentencing: The sentence of the court below (the fine of 500,000 won) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this part of this case based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, as it can be acknowledged that the Defendant sold tobacco to consumers as a non-designated retailer.

The defendant advertised that he sells pipes at the Internet shopping mall site No. 11 and the market, etc., and the next issue is J (the defendant's cell phone number) telephone call.

In light of the fact that the phrase “” left (Evidence Nos. 13-14, 131) and others, the Defendant advertised for the sale of tobacco to many unspecified consumers using the Internet shopping mall, which constitutes a “sale of tobacco” business.

The Defendant asserted that tobacco dust had been produced to see a pipe to a purchaser on-line, and that it was merely a sample offer to a purchaser on-line. However, the Defendant sent a pipe to the purchaser and notified the purchaser of the tobacco price to the purchaser (Evidence No. 125-126, 162-163) (Evidence No. 125-126, 162-163), and ② the Defendant received an amount equivalent to the above amount by setting a tobacco price separately from the pipe price from the purchaser (Evidence No. 122, 133-134).