The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A merely provided customers, such as E, with ‘202 Ceus (Seus)’, which is a beer drink.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the above defendant provided cans to customers is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, judicial police officers conducted an illegal investigation by threatening Defendant A to prepare a false statement, etc. The evidence secured through such investigation and the evidence additionally obtained through such evidence are also illegally collected evidence, and thus, they cannot be used as evidence.

C. Even if the court below found the Defendants guilty of unfair sentencing, the punishment (the fine of one million won is imposed on Defendant A, and the fine of two million won is imposed on Defendant B) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for permission to amend an amendment to a bill of amendment to the law to add "Article 35 of the Music Industry Promotion Act" to the applicable provisions of the law to Defendant A, and this court permitted the application and changed the subject of the adjudication, thereby making it impossible to maintain the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and defendant B's assertion of unreasonable sentencing are still subject to the judgment of this court, so this is examined.

3. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by Defendants and misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, all the facts charged against the Defendants are recognized.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake is without merit.

1 Defendant A provided “E at the police station with a spe, bean, spe and spe, but the drinking water is not provided for sale.”