Therefore, the defendant's act is not a violation of Article 13 (1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (the establishment, management, and operation of multi-level marketing organizations without registration).

Gco sales do not mean “money transactions without any transaction of goods, etc., or only money transactions under the pretending to such transaction of goods, etc.,” and thus, stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment that “only monetary transactions are conducted without any transaction of goods, etc., or by pretending to such transaction of goods, etc.,” (Form 3 of the lower judgment). The Defendant asserts that “money transactions without any transaction of goods, etc., or only monetary transactions are conducted under the pretending to such transaction.”

However, since the portion of “money transaction without the transaction of goods, etc.” is not indicated in the facts of the construction, and even if the judgment below is taken as a whole, it is deemed that such part is deleted, the judgment of the court below is corrected, and this part is no further examined.

No violation of Article 24 (1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (Prohibition of de facto monetary transactions) shall be applicable.

In addition, the defendant recognized that Gcoin was an electronic currency and sold, so there was no intention to violate Article 24 (1) 1 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act.

Since the defendant was merely acting as a multi-level marketing salesperson when he believed Gaco as an electronic currency, the defendant did not assist the defendant to facilitate the violation of the door-to-door Sales Act of the principal offender, but the defendant did not have any intention to aid the violation of

The court below's decision on unfair sentencing.