The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s decision on the gist of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable to have determined that the scope of “a person who solicits customers noisily with the intent of doing business at a place where many people gather or frequent,” as prescribed by Article 3(1)8 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, is too wide, and contrary to the act of displaying goods from outside large marinas or department stores, it is unreasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act constitutes “libing acts” only with respect to the Defendant’s acts.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act as above constitutes “act of soliciting customers for business purposes” as provided by Article 3(1)8 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes “act of soliciting customers for business purposes,” rather than performing the above act, or merely giving notice of the excessive price, on the news report located in front of the instant tasks at the time of the instant case. The above act by the Defendant cannot be viewed as different even if the Defendant, after the lapse of the period, designated a specific person as well as the Defendant’s act of giving notice of the excessive price.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is erroneous by excessively extensively interpreting or analogically interpreting the meaning of a penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant.

It does not appear.

In addition, the court below's act of holding events while displaying goods outside large marinas or department stores does not constitute "act of attracting customers noisy with a view to business purposes at a place where many people gather or frequent" under Article 3 (1) 8 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of equality and interpreting penal laws.

It can not be seen by the prosecutor, and the age, character, intelligence and environment of the suspect, relationship with the victim, motive, means and result of the crime, after the crime is committed.