1. The lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A, C, D, E, F, and G on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (hereinafter “Door Sales Act”) due to the act imposing a burden on Defendant A, C, D, E, F, and G, and acquitted the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violating the Door-to-Door Sales Act

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants B and H, the lower court convicted Defendants B and H of the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act due to the act of having Defendants B and H bear the burden among the charges charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders, thereby infringing on the right of defense or violating the principle

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