방문판매등에관한법률위반
All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and observation of protection) against Defendant A (the guilty part of the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (as to the guilty portion of the lower judgment), and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant continued to sell it as a multi-level salesman even after concluding a contract with the branch president with respect to “I”, which is an unregistered multi-level organization, to pursue his own profit, and did not actively contribute to the illegal realization of the senior multi-level salesman or the actual multi-level distributor.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of protection observation) is too unreasonable.
(c)
1) The Defendants’ act of aiding and abetting the Defendants in violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. against the Defendants is all possible in all ways that assist the Defendants in violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. to facilitate the crime committed by the principals. As such, the Defendants’ act of explaining “I” to the subordinate sellers and thereby receiving sales proceeds from the subordinate sellers shall be deemed as aiding and abetting. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that deemed the Defendants’ act as a mere sales act separate from the Defendants’ act is erroneous and erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act.
B) As to the non-guilty portion of Defendant A’s reasons, Defendant A received the investment money from each of the instant crimes through each of the accounts in the name of Y and Z, and thus, the said Y and Z deposited money in the name of the said Y and Z is highly likely to actually deposit the investment money in the name of the said son.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which excludes the defendant's argument from the amount received, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.
2) The sentence against the Defendants is too unfair.