1. Examining the facts charged by Defendant A and B in light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for the establishment of fraud, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. by the Defendants, the lower court imposed a burden on Defendant C to purchase land exceeding the statutory limit, subject to the application of the payment criteria for favorable support allowances to multi-stage salespersons or multi-stage salespersons.

In light of the facts charged, this part of the charges was convicted.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the imposition of burden under Article 22(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

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