Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that it is difficult to view that Defendant A received KRW 3 million from the victim G on May 10, 2014, with respect to the Defendants’ fraud about the victim G and the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (not guilty in the grounds).

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that: (a) the victim G made a statement in an investigative agency as of May 10, 2014 regarding the date and time of the issuance of KRW 3 million to the victim G on the date and time of the issuance thereof on May 10, 2014; (b) there is no reason to believe that the statement was modified as above; and (c) the statement in the lower court testimony that the method of the issuance of KRW 3 million (whether cash delivery is a cash delivery account) is not memory in the court of the lower court; and (d) the statement in G’s investigative agency and court alone cannot be said to have been proven to the extent that the fact that the Defendant A received KRW 3 million in cash from G on May 10, 2014 cannot be deemed to have been proven to have been beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in the reasoning of the court below acknowledged by the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the ancillary charges changed in this court

A. The prosecutor’s amendment to the indictment shall keep the Defendants’ violation of the Act on Fraud and Door-to-Door Sales, etc., of the Victim G, which was acquitted by the lower court at this court, as the primary charge, while maintaining the Defendants’ violation of the said Act.