For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court held that: (a) a cooperator sells products to a consultant; (b) a consultant is not a consumer as defined in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the former Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012); and (c) a cooperator does not meet the requirement that “the goods, etc. supplied by the relevant seller are sold to consumers; and (b) a cooperator sells products to a non-member, if the non-member is not a person who wishes to become a consultant, the former door-to-Door Sales Act does not meet the requirement that “the whole or part of the consumer is engaged in the same activity as that of a specific person” among the consumer requirements under the former Door-to-Door Sales Act; and (d) if the non-member wishes to be a person who later becomes a specific person, it does not constitute a consumer under the former Door-to-Door Sales Act.

Since the requirements of items are not satisfied, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize E as a multi-level marketing organization under the above law.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on multi-level marketing organization as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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