Note: The following does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a professional lawyer for specific circumstances. When conceiving this defense strategy, it is necessary to realize that selling tobacco products to minors is clearly illegal in most jurisdictions. Even if the perpetrator claims that his purpose is market research rather than illegal profit, this fact usually cannot exempt him from legal liability. In other words, the law usually does not allow the so-called "investigation of market demand" as an excuse to circumvent relevant legal provisions for protecting minors. Therefore, any defense strategy faces severe challenges and must be carefully evaluated. The following are only a few directions that may be discussed in theory, but whether these strategies can be established in court needs to be judged based on specific facts, evidence and applicable laws: 1. Proof of intent rather than profit behavior may try to prove that the customer is not for the purpose of seeking huge profits, but for the exploration of market information. For example, you can try to show relevant internal documents, emails or meeting minutes to prove that the research plan has been discussed and approved by the market research department. The key is to emphasize that the original intention of the sales behavior is to collect data, rather than simple commercial sales. However, this argument is usually difficult to change the "objective illegal fact of selling to minors." 2. Prove "controlled experiment" or "hypothetical scenario" Another possible defense is that the client conducted market research in a strictly controlled experimental environment and took measures such as limited quantity and short-term trial sales, and there were also strict data confidentiality and analysis regulations afterwards. Defense lawyers may argue that this "trial sales" is different from conventional commercial profit-making behavior, and there are clear risk control and purpose statements in the research design. However, the court may still believe that the social harm of intentionally exposing minors to tobacco products for research is difficult to be offset by the purpose of market research. 3. Procedural and regulatory defects In some cases, the defense may also try to start from the law enforcement procedures or regulatory approvals, claiming that there are procedural flaws or excessive law enforcement in the investigation process, so as to strive to characterize the behavior as a technical violation or administrative error. However, this strategy is also limited because even if there are procedural problems, it is difficult to completely overturn the objective fact of sales to minors. 4. Evidence dispute Another idea is to question the prosecution's evidence, such as challenging the legality of the evidence, the standard of proof, and whether the prosecution's inference in the process of determining the defendant's subjective intention is reasonable. However, this requires sufficient evidence to show that the internal decision-making and operating procedures based on the client at the time of the behavior are indeed consistent with the legal and compliant market research plan. In general, although it is theoretically possible to try to prove that the purpose of the behavior is only data collection rather than illegal profit, the law and public policy generally strictly prohibit any form of selling tobacco products to minors. In order to protect the health of minors and the public interest, the court usually does not use "market research" as a sufficient and legal reason to deny the illegal nature. Therefore, when drafting a defense opinion, it is recommended to: a. Carefully review all relevant internal records and collect evidence that can prove the nature of the research and the lack of illegal profit motives; b. Analyze the legal provisions on the protection of minors and tobacco sales in the jurisdiction to assess whether there are any possibilities that can reduce liability or procedural flaws; c. At the same time, be prepared to deal with social, media and judicial pressure, because such cases often arouse the public's high attention to the issue of minor protection. Finally, it is emphasized again: Since the sale of tobacco products to minors involves major public policy and health protection considerations, even if it can be partially proved that the original intention of the behavior is market research, the court may still determine that the behavior has a risk of illegality regardless of the subjective intention. Be sure to ask a professional lawyer to provide specific guidance based on complete facts and evidence.