All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the crime of violating the Tobacco Business Act), the phrase “uses containing nicotine” made by mixing the common arguments of the Defendants, the concentration of nicotine, propycol, vegetable glycerine, and flags, does not constitute “tobacco” under the Tobacco Business Act.

The judgment of the court below that judged differently is a violation of the prohibition of analogical interpretation.

According to the current interpretation of the law that considers the nicotine of high concentration as tobacco, the Defendants’ subdividing the dilution of high concentration nicotine with a certain percentage cannot be deemed as an act of manufacturing tobacco.

2) The above defendant A heard the decision of non-prosecution by the Sung-nam branch office of the Sung-nam branch office of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office with respect to the Korean electronic tobacco company, and thought that the above defendant did not have any awareness of illegality.

3) On the other hand, Defendant B added his assertion that there was no perception of illegality due to Defendant B believed the prosecution’s non-prosecution decision on electronic tobacco in Korea, a stock company, after the lapse of the period for appeal due to the reasons for appeal. Although this does not fall under legitimate grounds for appeal, it is intended to urge ex officio decision, the following 2.C.

We also examine the paragraph.

In light of the tobacco business law and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the criteria for tobacco manufacturing permission are set only on the basis of tobacco tobacco, and there is no separate criteria for permission on the electronic tobacco amount containing nicotine. In such a situation, the rate of the above defendant's act to the violation of tobacco business is against the principle of law of crime.

The award of the electronic tobacco amount of this case was produced by Defendant A alone, and Defendant B did not manufacture the electronic tobacco amount of this case in collusion with Defendant A.

Defendant

B's act constitutes aiding and abetting a violation of tobacco business, but the Defendants are co-principals in tobacco business.