A. Defendant 1) In regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s “F” in the operation of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant company”).

If the chief of the Office (hereinafter referred to as the "regular staff") provides the victims with regard to the benefits and allowances system, he/she shall be paid allowances, education, and continuous service allowances for KRW 600,000 based on the sales performance of the salesperson managed by the chief of the Office of Allowances, and shall guarantee the payment of KRW 150,000 per month, as stated in the facts charged.

"The victims did not deceiving the victims, and did not promise the victims to purchase goods consigned to the company of this case or to purchase them again. This is nothing more than that made by Co-defendant B, who was the chief of the responsibility of the company of this case, as the chief of the first instance court.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving victims in collusion with B, etc.

② With regard to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (hereinafter “Door Sales Act”), among the facts charged in the instant case, the position system of the instant company is composed of two stages, namely, the difference between the names depending on the period of service and the internship staff, the chief of the office and the chief of the main office. In fact, the position system of the instant company is composed of two stages, namely, the difference between the names based on the period of service and the names depending on the internship and the internship staff, the chief of the office and the chief of the main office.

As such, the instant company is not a multi-level marketing organization as stipulated in the Door-to-Door Sales Act, since the payment method of bonuses does not exceed three stages.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the 3 years of suspended sentence for two years of imprisonment, the 300 hours of community service order and the 30 million won of fine) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. The prosecutor (the lower court’s sentence of imprisonment is too unreasonable and unfair) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

(a)the fraud;