(b) Whether the contents of each provision of Article 18 of the same Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act conflict with other provisions of the same Act

(c) Whether Article 3(1) of the same Act and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 13(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act violate the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of business or the right to equality;

B. The contents of each provision of Article 18 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act conflict with other provisions of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act.

C. Article 3(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act excludes insurance under the Insurance Business Act, and Article 13(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act excludes auxiliary goods necessary for the other party or the insured to sell goods or to provide services, which correspond to not more than 50,00 won, from “specific burdens” under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the same Act, it cannot be deemed that it violates the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of business or the right to equality.

According to Article 13 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), even if profits are derived from the sale, etc. of goods by the other party or another party's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company.

In addition, according to the indictment, it is clear that the prosecutor only participated in the "organization" as provided by Article 13 (1) 1 and 2 of the "Rules", and therefore, it is obvious that the prosecutor has instituted a public prosecution. Thus, the issue of whether Article 13 (1) 3 through 8 of the "Rules" is null and void because the organization is provided beyond the scope delegated by Article 18 (1) of the "Act", such as the theory of lawsuit, does not have any relationship with this case.

In preparation for each provision of Article 18(1) of the Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Decree”) that provides for the contents of “interest prescribed by the Presidential Decree” under the provisions of the Act, the content of each provision of Article 18(1) and Article 13 of the same Act does not seem to be a provision that goes beyond the scope of delegation under the provisions of Article 18(1) of the Act, such as the theory of lawsuit under Article 10(1) of the same Decree, and it cannot be deemed that the content of each provision of Article 18(1) of the Act and Article 13 of the “Rules” is inconsistent with the other provisions of the “Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.”

Ultimately, we cannot accept the argument.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

Article 3 (1) of the Act and Article 2 (3) of the "Decree" excludes insurance under the Insurance Business Act from being subject to the application of the "Act" and Article 13 (1) 2 (a) of the "Rules" excludes the subsidiary goods necessary for the other party or the insured to sell goods or to provide services, which correspond to not more than 50,000 won, from the "specified burdens" under Article 2 (5) of the "Act". Thus, it cannot be deemed as violating the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of business or the right to equality, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 1

In theory, although Non-Indicted 1, 192, Non-Indicted 1, had been manufactured and sold this case's tin. However, in preparation for the enforcement from July 1, 192, the "Act" was completely revised and divided between manufacturing and selling companies into separate corporations and the above company was not involved in sales, the sales organization involved by the defendants does not constitute "organization" under Article 13 (1) 1 of the "Rules". The defendants' act does not violate the provisions of Article 18 of the Act, since the defendants' act did not receive economic benefits under Article 10 of the "Ordinance". However, even if the above company took measures such as separating the company that manufactured the tin's tin's company from selling it to the company that manufactured the tin's company, as the theory of lawsuit, even if the facts were legally determined by the judgment of the court of first instance, it constitutes a case where the defendants 1's act was not established in violation of the provisions of Article 18 (1) 1 of the Act, and it constitutes a case where the defendants's act was established or operated in violation of the Act.

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)