The principle of the bull of the month

From reading on Wikipedia Shufersal:
In September 2011 , the company was convicted again of the above offenses. Judge Avraham Heyman of the Rishon Lezion Magistrate’s Court accepted a plea agreement in which a fine of 250,000 shekels was imposed on Shufersal for misleading consumers. This was because the chain’s branches charged consumers higher prices than those marked on the products themselves. As part of the arrangement signed between the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce (which filed the indictment on behalf of the state) and Shufersal, the chain also signed a commitment of 150,000 shekels not to commit a similar offense in the next two years. Personal commitments of 1,500 shekels each were also signed by three branch managers of the chain [52] .

On the face of it, the signature “not to commit a similar offense in the next two years” is puzzling and that it was previously permitted. However, on second glance it seems (without seeing the P.D.) that the principle of “moedot” may apply here and if Shufersal returns to the Sura, it will be charged more than the amount (Tam). In short, they got off cheap.

Is Mo’edot a broad principle that extends beyond issues regarding the “Sor HaMo’ed” (a person who causes harm and returns the majority and brings down the rain)? And are there any precedents for this (a kind of compromise and agreement not to return to his “Sor HaMo’ed” (a type of agreement