The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who works in the Internet website and in the country as “B”.

Except in cases where a dealer under Article 8 of the Act on the Safety Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. places an advertisement for permitted products, no sales, lease, or advertisement for such purposes shall be made by means of gambling, street stores, outdoor commercial activities, or electronic commerce using the Internet, etc.

Nevertheless, around 06, 201. - around 16:30 on April 15, 2016, the Defendant advertised for the purpose of selling KRW 350,000 for air guns (new character capital 2, 707, and manufacturing number : C) 1 to the site of the Central and High Republic of Korea, which requires permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Viewing in guns;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the closures of a second class of the Republic of Korea and the closure of a text message;

1. Article applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 72 subparagraph 1 of Article 72 and Article 8 of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. selected to commit an offense;

1. Punishment of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015; Article 8 of the Act on the Safety Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc.) prohibits sales, lease, or advertisement of guns, swords, explosives, etc. by means of electronic commerce, mail order, or door-to-door sales, and the said amended Act was enforced from January 6, 2016.

Defendant was prosecuted on September 21, 2015, prior to the enforcement of the above Act, on the ground that he sold a letter to the “China country” and posted it on September 21, 2015, and did not delete the above notice after the enforcement of the Act, thereby advertising air gun sales. The Defendant, a general company, seems to have been unable to accurately understand the amendment and enforcement of the above Act, and the Defendant complied with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in relation to possession of firearms.