All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendants did not sell the drinking spring water products stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a fine of one million won each) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts, a thorough comparison of the records and records can be recognized that the Defendants distributed and sold the spring water products as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

B. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the court of first instance solely on the ground that the conditions of sentencing are not changed in comparison with the judgment of the court of first instance, and that 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 reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the court of first instance (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), solely on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion and is somewhat different from the opinion of the court of first instance (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the court of first instance as the materials for new sentencing are not submitted in the trial,

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.