1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted Defendant A of violating the Door-to-Door Sales Act among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

2. Defendant B’s appeal against Defendant B is an objection against the lower court’s judgment, and its essence is to file a claim for a judgment disadvantageous to the Defendant by correcting the judgment unfavorable to the Defendant. Therefore, unless the judgment of the lower court is disadvantageous to the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1702, Aug. 31, 1987; 2005Do4866, Sept. 15, 2005). According to the records, Defendant B did not file an appeal after having been acquitted of the charge of violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case, for two years of suspended sentence in the first instance court, and for two years of suspended sentence in the course of fraud, and only the Prosecutor appealed appealed the entire judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, or unfair sentencing, but the lower court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal.

In light of the above legal principles, since the judgment of the court below cannot be seen as disadvantageous judgment against Defendant B, Defendant B did not have the right to appeal, and the appeal of this case is incidental to the law.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have acquitted the Defendants of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.