The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the criminal facts in the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013Ma840, 2426 (Consolidated) (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013No1345, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do2727) and the criminal facts in this case, which were separately prosecuted by the Defendant, are different from the types of newspapers advertised by the Defendant, and the contents of the advertisement are different, such as additional entry of experience devices, and the advertisement is different. The time for the advertisement is not continuous, not for a single criminal offense but for a new advertisement with new criminal intent or equipment, and thus, it cannot be deemed a single comprehensive crime. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the number of crimes.

2. Determination is justified in the judgment of the court below, although the defendant advertised not only one newspaper but also about two months in different newspapers, and the contents of the advertisement also differ by inserting or deducting experience equipment, etc. However, as the defendant continued to grow up with a certain size and rhythm with the trade name "E", and as a single intention to sell turlty tree with a single intention, each of the facts charged in the instant case where the advertisement was inserted on the newspaper for such a business, and each of the facts charged in the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013Da840, 2426 (Joint) (hereinafter the same court, 2013No1345, 2014Do2727) was committed as a single criminal intent as a means of one business. The regulation of the Food Sanitation Act is for preventing risks to the public health, and it cannot be deemed that there was a new danger by the defendant for a continuous criminal act with a certain period of time, and the judgment of the court below is charged with the comprehensive criminal act of this case.

The prosecutor's argument is without merit.

(3) The Prosecutor’s appeal is without merit and the Criminal Procedure Act is without merit. Thus, the Prosecutor’s appeal is without merit.