All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The Defendants were not willing to make an advertisement that is likely to have efficacy and effect in the prevention and treatment of diseases and E, the co-defendants of the court below, or to mislead or confuse them as medicine. There is no fact that the Defendants made the above false or exaggerated advertisement through functional control over a functional act.

B. The Defendants’ promotion of speculative spirit cannot be deemed as a case of selling goods or free gifts to provide customers with the cost level of household goods, and even if so, it cannot be said that the Defendants promoted speculative spirit.

2. Determination

A. In the case of false or exaggerated advertisements, there is a combination of two or more co-offenders who jointly process a crime, not a statutory penalty, but a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process a crime.

Although there is no process of the whole mother, if the combination of doctors is made in order or implicitly through several persons, there is a competitive relationship.

In order to recognize a conspiracy, strict proof is required, but if the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the nature of the crime.

In this context, what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance ought to be based on normal empirical rule and ought to be reasonably determined the connection status of the fact by means of a thorough observation or analysis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008; 2012Do5220, Aug. 30, 201). Moreover, the joint commission of a crime by conspiracy is not premised on the fulfillment by all accomplices themselves of the requirement of the crime.