1. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) or fraud, and door-to-door sales, etc.

A. As to the existence of deception, the common grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, C, and G on the scope and timing of the establishment of fraud, and the grounds of appeal by Defendant D, the lower court determined as follows: (a) on the grounds that the Defendants deceptioned the entire business activities of S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”), including marketing franchise (hereinafter “S”), the main marketing structure and the trend of remaining code; (b) deception in the process of realizing marketing franchise; (c) repeated implementation of special Alpha and Spanionization; (d) the victim’s purchase behavior from January 1, 2013; (b) methods of providing information on the professionalization to the victims; (c) the size and method of return; (d) the size and method of disposal; (d) public trial on the goods; (e) changes in sales revenue and financial status; and (e) possibility of continuing business activities of S; and (e) the Defendants, under the pretext of deceiving the victims into the total purchase cost of the goods by deceiving the victims, under the pretext of the purchase cost of the goods.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence, the Defendants did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the scope of establishment of fraud, the point of establishment, the violation of the principle of trial on evidence, and the inconsistency of reasoning.

B. The remainder of Defendant D.