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 the instant 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, and found the Defendant guilty

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 so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the scope of application of the Act on Intention and Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. in the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting fraud, and by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of “multi-level marketing organization or any other organization composed of persons by stages similar

The Supreme Court’s decision cited in the grounds of appeal differs from the instant case, and thus is inappropriate to invoke the instant case.

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