For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the instant facts charged (excluding the portion not guilty in the first instance trial).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the concept of “goods or services”, “act of providing goods or services,” and “act of providing de facto monetary transactions,” as prescribed by the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., which are derived from the principle of prohibition of extended interpretation in violation of the principle of logic and experience,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.