The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant kept a leaflet in the office and did not distribute a leaflet to many and unspecified persons. As such, there was no advertisement act. 2) The “E technology” used in the hearing aids sold by the Defendant has a function to improve hearing ability, and it is not an exaggerated advertisement even if the Defendant used the advertising phrase, such as the statement in the decision of the lower court, in order to inform the effect of improving hearing ability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and assertion 1) Although the relevant legal doctrine does not provide for the definition of “advertisement”, the term “advertisement” generally refers to any means that are widely known to the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da210231, Jan. 25, 2018), more specifically refers to any act of delivering information necessary for the sale of goods, use of services, or promotion of the image of enterprises or organizations with the ultimate aim of selling goods or using services, or promoting the image of the enterprises or organizations, through a medium.

나) 구체적 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인은 ‘생활 속의 고통! 듣지 못하는 불행! 이명, 난청, 치매 이젠 회복될 수 있다!!!’라는 제목의 전단지(이하 ‘이 사건 전단지’라 한다

2,00 copies are produced and kept in the office of “D” company operated by the Defendant and distributed them to the customers visiting this place. <2> The former part of this case aims to explain the inspection provided by the D Hearing Center and to provide guidance and consultation with the office location.