The part of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance as to Defendant D shall be reversed, respectively.
D. The term of imprisonment shall be one year.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each sentence (Defendant B: fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor of June, 2 years of suspended execution, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor of June, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution, 10 months of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution, Defendant AI: imprisonment with prison labor of October, 2 years of suspended execution, 10 years of suspended execution, Defendant AI: 10 months of suspended execution and 2 years of suspended execution) that the court below sentenced the Defendants is too
The second instance judgment of the prosecutor (as to the second instance judgment), the sentence imposed on Defendant D and AI is too unhued and unfair.
Of the Prosecutor’s judgment on Defendant D’s Nos. 1 and 2, the Prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant D, the first instance court ex officio prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal against Defendant D, and the first instance court on Defendant D decided to jointly examine each of the appeals cases of the judgment below against Defendant D. The judgment of the lower court on Defendant D rendered that each of the offenses in the judgment of the lower court against Defendant D is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part on Defendant D among the judgment of the first and the second of the judgment of the lower court
B, the most favorable circumstance is that the Defendants could have led to the confession of the facts charged in the instant case and to reflect their mistakes.
However, the crime of this case was committed in collusion with recruitment books, instructors, sales clerks, etc. on an organized basis and sold the product that was fluent to general food by making an exaggerated advertisement as if it were a medicine with outstanding effect on the treatment and prevention of diseases. Moreover, the crime of this case was committed during the suspension period of the execution of the same kind of crime, and unlike others, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion on the defendants.
The circumstances to be assessed or the fact that there is no new material in the course of the trial of sentencing at the time of the party deliberation (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.) and the age of the Defendants.