For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. among the revised facts charged in this case, and found the Defendant not guilty of the fraud part, which is the primary facts charged, as in the first instance trial, on the ground that there is no proof of crime, but guilty of the aiding and abetting part

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In conclusion, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the act of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting fraud, the scope of the application of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., the statutory principle on punishment, and the confiscation, in violation of logical and empirical rules.

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