The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is unreasonable as it is excessively unhued.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that differs from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinions of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendants to the above punishment on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The lower court sentenced the Defendants to the above punishment on the grounds of the following: (a) the Defendants were able to receive false or exaggerated advertisements as if they were effective in preventing or treating a specific disease; and (b) the Defendants were able to have no reasonable profits in the first instance court’s sentencing; and (c) the Defendants were given no profits in the first instance judgment.