beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.01.13 2015고단4463

방문판매등에관한법률위반

Text

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this decision is published against the Defendants.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A operates a visiting store, and Defendant B is an employee.

No visiting seller, etc. shall inform false or exaggerated facts, induce or trade with consumers, or interfere with the withdrawal of subscription or termination of contract.

Nevertheless, on October 1, 2014, the Defendants conspired to install G store on the first floor of the F Building of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and distribute promotional leaflets to neighboring apartment buildings and residential districts, thereby inducing consumers at a place other than business place. Defendant B received a gift amount of KRW 948,00 in total from around that time to November 6, 2014, by explaining and selling products through an exaggeration method that the coagum of “Domestic Green He” has the effect of suffering from urology and high blood pressure, and that it is adequate for the deficiency and high blood pressure recovery, and then selling products to 61 persons, including I, including I, from that time to November 6, 2014, sold apapap948 in total and KRW 95,000 in total,00 in total.

Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that a door-to-door sales organization shall be established, managed, and operated by a door-to-door sales business operator (door-to-door sales business operator) and a door-to-door sales business operator on behalf of a door-to-door sales business operator (door-to-door sales operator) to run a door-to-door sales business. According to the examination of evidence, the Defendants were not the nominal owner or actual operator of G, but Defendant A was in charge of accounting duties at the store around the date specified in the facts charged, and Defendant B was an employee and was in charge of contact with H and other suppliers. Thus, it is determined that the above provision

Therefore, we examine whether the Defendants, as visiting sellers, prohibited acts under Article 11 (1) 2 of the Act.

According to the results of the examination of evidence, the Defendants are in the above accounting and accounting.