Defendant 1, 8 years of imprisonment, 5 years of imprisonment, 4 years of imprisonment, 2, and 3 years of imprisonment, 3 years of imprisonment, 4, 5, and 9 of imprisonment, 3 years of imprisonment, 6, and 10 of imprisonment, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment and 8 months of imprisonment, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for 5 years for Defendant 5, 9, 4 years for Defendant 6, and 10, and 3 years for Defendant 8.

To order the community service for 120 hours each to Defendant 8, 9, and 10.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Defendant 1

(A) the existence and scope of conspiracys for each of the crimes of heading 2007 and 1357

① Defendant 1 was engaged in multi-level sales activities as door-to-door sales members of Nonindicted Co. 15, a multilevel marketing salesperson of Nonindicted Co. 14 or door-to-door sales business, and there was no participation in the operation of Nonindicted Co. 14 and the establishment of Nonindicted Co. 15, and the adviser of Nonindicted Co. 14’s Business Operators Development Committee (hereinafter “○○○”). However, ○○○ was merely resolving the complaints of its members as a sales salesperson’s meeting, and thus, it cannot be said that he conspired.

(2) It is unreasonable to impose responsibility for the overall sales of the company beyond the responsibility for the business through the Ansan Center in that Defendant 1 was the representative of the Ansan Center.

(B) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "Special Economic Crimes Act") (Embezzlement)

Defendant 1’s loan of KRW 2.635 billion to the salesperson, KRW 2.35 billion in the production cost of gold, KRW 2.333 billion in the name of the superior defendant 7 with financial capacity to repay to the company, and KRW 2.333,33 million in the name of the ○○ Agricultural Association for the company is not irrelevant to the company’s business, and thus, the amount of embezzlement should be excluded.

(C) Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission (hereinafter “the Act”).

In light of the official data, etc., Nonindicted Co. 39 cannot be deemed to have engaged in the act of fund-raising without delay in light of the following: “The maximum investment principal shall be guaranteed up to 90%, and if profits accrue, 30-50% interest; however, if losses are incurred due to the performance of the investment, etc., the result thereof shall be reverted to the investor; and if a member of 744 has received only 90% of the investment and has not operated any business any longer, Nonindicted Co.

(2) Defendant 2

(A) Accompeting each of the crimes of heading 2007 and 1357

Defendant 2 was registered in ○○○ as a member at the time of the launch of Nonindicted Co. 14. At the time of the introduction of the co-ownership marketing of Nonindicted Co. 14, there was no participation in the introduction of the co-ownership marketing. Nonindicted Co. 15 did not participate in the business of Nonindicted Co. 15. The relationship with which hospitalization was given due to the operation of the hard disc drive and the front hemal paralysis, etc., which was conducted throughout the country, such as Busan, without the state of business explanation, and therefore, there was no active act of imposing duties or inducing the subordinate business. Thus, Defendant 2 cannot be said to have conspired.

(B) The offer was made in the case No. 2008 Gohap1247 and No. 2009 Gohap10

Defendant 2, from Defendant 7 above, knew that the business of Nonindicted Co. 39 was legitimate by reason of the explanation that “Nonindicted Co. 39 is not multi-level, multi-level, door-to-door sales registration company, marketing is approved and permitted, and there is no legal defect in the trade law,” Defendant 1 dealt with all matters, such as explanation to members and the heads of branch offices, approval right and branch management, etc., and, in particular, Defendant 7 provided that there was an affiliate that develops IP-TV, and provided that Defendant 7 was an affiliate that develops IP-TV, and provided that Defendant 7 provided a representative of the affiliate at the event of a conference held in the astronomical Roet Ethical Ethical Ethical Eths of the Y, but it cannot be said that Defendant 7 and Defendant 1 used high-class automobiles by individually bearing lease fees under the direction of Defendant 7 and 1.

(3) Defendant 3

(A) A public offering was made for each of the crimes of heading 2007 and 1357

Defendant 3 merely recruited assistant multi-stage salesmen according to marketing franchise and did not have participated in the introduction of marketing franchise. Defendant 3 was merely an advisory organization excluded from the decision-making of Nonindicted Co. 14 and Nonindicted Co. 15 as a superior sales group, and did not participate in the operation of Nonindicted Co. 14. Defendant 3 was merely an advisory organization that was an advisory organization that was an adviser and was excluded from the decision-making of the superior sales group. Defendant 3 did not know about the DV exchange rate, cost rate, and allowance payment rate, which are the fraudulent elements of marketing franchise. Defendant 3 did not know whether Nonindicted Co. 14 and Nonindicted Co. 15 were false or exaggerated or deceptive methods. Thus, Defendant 1 cannot be said to have conspired.

(B) The offer was made in the case No. 2008 Gohap1247 and No. 2009 Gohap10

Defendant 3 lent money to Defendant 7 and 11 as a fund for the establishment of a company. Defendant 3 did not have been involved in the actual operation and finance of the company, such as receiving business reports from employees or not giving business instructions to employees. Since Defendant 3 only lent and used high-class motor vehicles on an individual basis prior to the establishment of Nonindicted Co. 39, Defendant 3 cannot be deemed to have conspired.

(C) Violation of special law (Fraud)

Defendant 3 explained that the explanation in the Company would develop the content related to IP-TV as stated, or provided a simple product explanation, and there was no intention to obtain fraud.

(4) Defendant 4

(A) Violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. related to Nonindicted Co. 14 (hereinafter “PSA”)

① Defendant 4 was appointed under the direction of the head office as the representative of the branch office and only managed the branch office, and was involved in the introduction of “shared marketing franchise,” and there was no independent judgment or authority to conduct its business. Thus, Defendant 4 does not constitute multi-level marketing business operators.

② Defendant 4 merely carried on business according to the order of the head office, and did not either inform subordinate salespersons of false or exaggerated facts or induce them to engage in transactions by using deceptive means. The subordinate salespersons knew of the quality, price, etc. of the product and did not purchase it by inducing Defendant 4’s deceptive acts.

(B) The offer was made in the case No. 2008 Gohap1247 and No. 2009 Gohap10

Defendant 4 lent KRW 100 million to Defendant 11 et al. for the establishment of Nonindicted Co. 39, and was registered in the form as an auditor of Nonindicted Co. 39, and was not involved in the actual operation of Nonindicted Co. 39. Thus, it cannot be said that he conspired.

(C) The act of fund-raising without permission

In the event of re-investment, the investors of Nonindicted Co. 38 are guaranteed more than contributions, but if they do not make a re-investment, they are not guaranteed more than 90% of the principal, so the amount of non-investment shall be excluded from the act of receiving funds without

(5) Defendant 5, 6

(A) The fact that Nonindicted Co. 14 conspireds to commit a crime of violation of the Sales Act

① As to the indictment, there is no timely statement about the date, time, place, etc., the agreement between Defendant 5 and Defendant 1, etc. was reached between Defendant 5 and Defendant 1, the indictment was not specified.

② Defendant 5 and 6 are merely a multi-level marketing salesperson of a non-indicted 15 corporation. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the public offering was made, and there is no basis to regard the person who actually executes the business.

③ Defendant 5 and 6 did not have any negligence as to inducing consumers by impliedly combining doctors or by false, exaggeration or deceptive means.

(B) The public offering of information about the act of fund-raising without permission

Defendant 5 and 6 did not know the problems of compensation franchise as a mere salesperson, delivered the company's instructions to its members as they were, and offered funds for the operation of the center and the support for its members. Thus, it cannot be said that there was collusion.

(6) Defendant 7

(A) The offer was made in the case No. 2008 Gohap1247 and No. 2009 Gohap10

Defendant 7 is not the Chairperson of Nonindicted 39 Co., Ltd., but actually operated Nonindicted 39 Co., Ltd. or was involved in the business of Nonindicted 39 Co., Ltd., so it cannot be said that he conspired.

(B) The act of fund-raising without permission

The act of receiving money without delay as described in paragraph (1) above does not constitute an act of receiving money without delay.

(C) Violation of special law (Fraud)

① In light of the frequency, motive, means, etc. of the crime, Defendant 7’s crime of fraud, which was subject to a final and conclusive judgment, is that “Defendant 7 acquired 32.93 billion won through 4,126 times from September 25, 2006 to November 30, 207,” and in light of the frequency, motive, and method, etc. of the crime, it is obvious that Defendant 7 is a habitual offender due to “Habituality”. Thus, the judgment of acquittal of the charge of the violation of the Special Economic Act (Fraud) against Defendant 7 should be rendered, and in particular, the degree of 35% out of the violation of the Special Economic Act (Fraud) overlaps with the final and conclusive judgment at the time of the final and conclusive judgment, the legal principle cannot be applied to the case before the final and conclusive judgment is rendered.”

② Nonindicted Co. 39 was in the process of receiving the investment money from the IP-TV content producer and making a report to, registering with, and obtaining approval from the Korea Communications Commission under the business plan to generate profits by providing them. Nonindicted Co. 39 had a technology on “means of exhausting the food and plant garbage-generating machine” and “the device of separating the food and plant garbage-generating machine” in the business feasibility clearly. As Nonindicted Co. 39 and Nonindicted Co. 17 had a business entity and a profit model, it cannot be said that there was a criminal intent of defraudation with Defendant 7.

(7) Defendant 8

(A) The conspiracy of each of the crimes of 2008 Gohap1247 and 2009 Gohap10

Defendant 8, as the chief of the business of Nonindicted Co. 39, was engaged in simple business affairs, such as branch management, electronic data direction of sales, calculation of sales products, entry and exit management, product management, civil petition and official document processing, etc., according to the orders of Defendant 1, who was the chief of the business of Nonindicted Co. 39, who was the chief of the board of directors. Defendant 8 cannot be deemed to have recruited since he did not have discussed the business of Nonindicted Co. 39 along with the representative director or officers of Nonindicted Co. 39, or

(B) The act of fund-raising without permission

Defendant 8 was unaware of the fact that Nonindicted 39 was an enterprise engaged in the fund-raising business without delay after joining Nonindicted 39 Company before the investigation of the instant case.

(8) Defendant 9, 10

Defendant 9 and 10 merely believe that Nonindicted 39 Co., Ltd.’s management’s “legal business” and delivered the company’s instructions to other members as they are, and they cannot be deemed to have conspired to use the center’s subsidies for personal benefits, as they do not have any personal benefits.

(9) Defendant 11

(A) The conspiracy of each of the crimes of 2008 Gohap1247 and 2009 Gohap10

Defendant 11 is the vice-chairperson of the ○○ Group, not Nonindicted Co. 39, and except for the attendance at the seminars of Nonindicted Co. 39, Defendant 11 cannot be deemed to have conspired because he did not attend the events of Nonindicted Co. 39 as its officers and present the project cost or participated in the business of Nonindicted Co. 39.

(B) The act of fund-raising without permission

The act of receiving money without delay as described in paragraph (1) above does not constitute an act of receiving money without delay.

(C) Violation of special law (Fraud)

As described in the above (6) (c), there was no intention to commit fraud against Defendant 11.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

(1) Defendants

The sentence against the Defendants of the lower court (Defendant 1: 12 years of imprisonment; 7 years of imprisonment; 8 years of imprisonment; 6 years of imprisonment; 6 years of imprisonment; 6 years of imprisonment; 6 years of imprisonment; 6 years of imprisonment; 9 years of imprisonment; 7 years of imprisonment; 9 years of imprisonment; 8 years of imprisonment; 3 years of suspension of execution; 3 years of imprisonment; 5 years of probation; 300 hours of social service; 10: imprisonment of two years and six months of suspension of execution; 4 years of probation; 260 hours of social service; and 11: 8 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(ii)A prosecutor;

The sentence imposed on Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11 of the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

(1) As to whether a person conspireds to commit each of the crimes of No. 2007 or 1357 (as to Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, limited to Defendant 5 and 6’s violation of the Sales Act)

(A) As to whether the facts charged are specified (defendants 5 and 6)

In light of the legal principles properly explained by the court below, the court below’s rejection of the above Defendants’ assertion that the facts charged against Defendant 5 and 6 were not specified is justified.

(B) As to whether the above Defendants conspired (as to the above Defendants)

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below held that Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as the superior salesperson of the non-indicted 14 corporation and officers or representatives of the ○○○○○○○, recruited subordinate salespersons under general control and supervision of the multi-level marketing business entity, and conducted the business by independent judgment or authority to a certain extent within the scope of the multi-level marketing business entity's business that imposes a burden on them, and thus, "the person who actually performed the relevant business" is "the person who actually performed the relevant business" and "the person who actually performed the relevant business" and "the person who knew false or exaggerated facts through the national center or business explanation, induces consumers by using deceptive methods, or by deceiving consumers, and committed the crime of this case. In light of the records and records, the court below's findings of fact and judgment are justified.

(C) As to whether the scope of joint principal liability is limited to the Ansansan Center (Defendant 1)

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, that is, in the management of the members and payment of allowances for Nonindicted Co. 14 and Nonindicted Co. 15, the Ansan Center, whose representative was Defendant 1, was the head office or other center, was not operated independently and independently, and rather, it was comprehensively connected with the head office and all other centers under the control and management of the head office, it is justifiable for the court below to hold Defendant 1 liable for the entire sales of the company as a joint principal offender.

(2) As to whether each crime of 2008 Gohap1247 and 2008 Gohap10 [except for the crime of violation of special law (Embezzlement)] was committed (limited to the act of receiving money without permission for the remaining Defendants except Defendant 1, except for Defendant 5 and Defendant 6]

In full view of the facts established by the court below, the court below determined that the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant 1, committed an act of fund-raising in collusion with Defendant 1 or by deceiving victims habitually, thereby deceiving the victims. In light of the legal principles and records properly stated by the court below, the court below's fact-finding and decision are justified

(3) As to the act of fund-raising without permission

(A) As to whether the solicitation of investment money constitutes an act of fund-raising without permission (as to Defendant 1, 4, 7, 8, and 11)

The court below determined that even if the above defendants guarantee only 90% of the principal amount to investors, the act of importing investment money constitutes "the act of importing investment money under the agreement to pay it in full or in excess of the amount of investment to the future" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and that the defendant 8 was aware of this fact, compared to the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are justified.

(B) As to whether the amount of non-investment should be excluded from the act of fund-raising without permission (as to Defendant 4)

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, i.e., the beginning of the investment that an investor started to make an investment on the ground that “the investor’s own will guarantee only 90% of the principal by failing to make a re-investment.” However, the court below is justified in holding that all of the non-investment amounts constitute a non-investment on the ground that the investor did not make a re-investment due to changes in personal circumstances after the initial investment, such as recognizing the risk of investment after the initial investment and reducing losses and not re-investment.”

(4) As to the violation of special law (Fraud)

(A) As to whether a judgment of acquittal can be rendered against Defendant 7

In determining the scope of res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment, in principle, it is based on the facts constituting a crime and name of a crime in which the final and conclusive judgment becomes final and conclusive. Thus, in addition to other facts constituting a crime and other circumstances revealed later, applying the validity of the final and conclusive judgment to a habitual offender, which is more severe than the contents of prosecution by the prosecutor, in light of the basic principles of criminal procedure. Therefore, even if each fraud committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment is in a single comprehensive crime as a habitual offender, if some of them were indicted as a simple fraud and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, it cannot be acquitted on the grounds of res judicata effect of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do3206, Sept. 16, 2004). Accordingly, Defendant 7’s assertion on this part is rejected.

(B) As to whether there was the intent to commit fraud (as to Defendant 3, 7, and 11)

The court below held that the above defendants enticed investors with the intent to acquire money from investors, taking into account the following facts: (a) although there was no fact-finding, in particular, Nonindicted 39 Co., Ltd. received the investment money from the victims and did not cause any profit by making re-investment; (b) the victims have been continuously paid 130% or 150% of the amount corresponding to 32 weeks through investments in other locations; (c) the victims have caused the victims to misunderstand that they would have made profits by making investments in the same place; (d) the above defendants paid the profits with the investment money, and there was no investment in any place that could generate profits; and (e) there was no specific plan for investment, and (e) there was no specific plan for investment.

(5) Violation of special law (Embezzlement) against Defendant 1

A company’s representative director’s withdrawal and use of large amount of company funds for purposes other than expenditures for the company under the pretext of provisional payment, etc., and the company’s failure to go through legitimate procedures such as approval of the board of directors is nothing more than lending and disposal of company funds for private purposes by using the status of representative director, etc. beyond the generally acceptable scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do8071, Jan. 12, 2007; 2003Do135, Apr. 27, 2006).

In addition to the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the facts acknowledged by Defendant 1’s oral statement, namely, that Defendant 1 purchased land in the name of Non-Indicted 39 Co., Ltd., under the name of Non-Indicted 39 Co., Ltd. and the fact-finding and judgment of the lower court that recognized Defendant 1’s arbitrary withdrawal of the funds of Non-Indicted 39 Co., Ltd. and used them for purposes other than those of expenditure for the company, and thus embezzled.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

(1) Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11

First, even though Defendant 1 was tried by the illegal multilevel conduct related to Nonindicted Co. 14, Defendant 1, along with Defendant 7, 11, established Nonindicted Co. 39 with the help of Defendant 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11 and with the help of Defendant 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11, led Nonindicted Co. 39, while operating Nonindicted Co. 39, Defendant 1 led Nonindicted Co. 5,400 and failed to use the money acquired from investors for any other purpose than the expenditure for the company at will, not for the company at will, but for the other purpose, the damage was not recovered. The fraud by using the fund received from investors under the pretext of investment money is likely to be social criticism because many victims are fluened and the amount of damage is large, and there is a serious harmful effect on society as a whole, it is inevitable to punish Defendant 1.

Next, Defendant 7 as the president of ○○ Group. Defendant 11, as the vice president of ○○ Group, proposed the business plan with Defendant 1 as the president of ○○ Group, had Defendant 1 establish Nonindicted Co. 39 after setting up a leading and leading act of receiving the business plan, and setting up the whole bottom of the fraudulent activities. Defendant 7’s supply of the goods, such as IP-TV sets sets and food waste-generating devices, etc., produced by Nonindicted Co. 6 and Nonindicted Co. 17, which were operated by ○○ Group, to Nonindicted Co. 39 and sold them to the victims. In particular, Defendant 11 continued consultation with Defendant 7 and 1 on the operation of Nonindicted Co. 39 and continued to exercise substantial influence over Nonindicted Co. 39’s policy decision-making direction, etc., but Defendant 11 and 39 cannot be punished against Defendant 1 and 19’s actual crime.

In addition, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 cannot be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the following reasons: (a) Defendant 1, 7, and 11 were tried by illegal multilevels related to Nonindicted Co. 14; and (b) Defendant 2, 3, and 4 did not seem to have a great influence on the actual operation and policy-making of Nonindicted Co. 39; and (c) Defendant 2, 3, and 4 cannot be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the following reasons: (a) Defendant 2, 7, and 11 did not take into consideration the concept of business plan regarding the act of receiving goods without permission from Defendant 1, 39; (b) Defendant 2, and 3 did work daily in the state of being registered as the representative director, director, or auditor; and (c) Defendant 4 and Defendant 4 did not have a heavier influence on the part of Nonindicted Co. 39 Co. , Ltd.; and (d) Defendants 2, and 3 merely worked as the advisor of ○○○.

However, Defendant 1 had been sentenced to imprisonment of 3,201 (59%) out of 5,417 victims' total amount of 5,200,000 won and total amount of 3.2 billion won [67.59,3220,000 won in total) as of March 24, 2009 - Defendant 1’s total of 38,000 won and 4.7 billion won (7.2% in total of 38,99,000 won in the 19th trial date) which had been sentenced to imprisonment with labor of 13.6 billion won and had been sentenced to imprisonment with labor of 13.6 billion won in total and 5 billion won in the above 19th trial (the amount of 13.6 billion won in the first 13.6 billion won in the first 200,672 billion won in the second 3.6 billion won in the final judgment of 19.3 billion won in the second 3 billion won in the case of 19.

(2) Defendant 5, 6

Defendant 5 and 6, as the representative of the Center or the head of a branch office, did not change the degree of participation in attracting investment funds from the victims. In particular, Defendant 5 and 6 committed the second crime while being tried as the first crime, and continued to commit the second crime even after being investigated by the police in relation to the second crime, and the nature of the crime is not easy in light of the harm of the act of fund-raising and the need for punishment.

However, Defendant 5 and 6 used a considerable portion of the money that Defendant 5 and 6 received from the head office as the center or branch operation expenses, etc. for the center or branch operation expenses, and the remaining portion also appears to have been paid to subordinate salespersons under the pretext of sales promotion expenses, etc. The economic benefits acquired through the instant crime are weak, there is no previous criminal punishment, and there is no record of criminal punishment, and the Defendant 5, who again takes advantage of his mistake, would not participate in illegal multi-level and door-to-door sales, and the act of receiving door-to-door sales and similar payments. Defendant 5, who raises 223 (81.4%) from among the 280 victims of the inner branch of the non-indicted 39 corporation and the head office, did not want criminal punishment against Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 appears to have reached almost near the family economy failure considering the degree of criminal punishment against the non-indicted 14 corporation and the degree of criminal punishment against the non-indicted 5, 65, and family relationship.

(3) Defendant 8

Considering that Defendant 8’s participation in marketing education is not easy, and above all, Defendant 8’s secondary crime is required to be punished for the period of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor even though Defendant 8 had already been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment by the court for the same kind of crime.

However, Defendant 8, as the chief of business, received a fixed amount monthly wage while conducting business under the direction of Defendant 1 as the chief of business, and did not directly obtain operating income from the instant crime. Above all, Defendant 8 was convicted of the judgment of the court below and detained by law, and even though the marriage ceremony was planned on May 23, 2009, Defendant 8 continued to trust Defendant 8 without the marriage between Defendant 8 and his parents and wanting to leave Defendant 8’s preference against Defendant 8, and taking into account the age, character, and family relationship of Defendant 8, the sentence against Defendant 8 by the court below is unreasonable.

(4) Defendant 9, 10

Considering the fact that Defendant 9 and 10 as the head of the business group is not less than those of the victims’ participation in attracting investment money, however, considering the fact that a considerable number of victims became the core of the operation of Nonindicted Co. 39 and agreed with Defendant 7, etc., Defendant 9 and 10, the community service hours for Defendant 9 and 10 are somewhat unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendants is well-grounded, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

A. Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4: Each of the former Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8537, Jul. 19, 2007; hereinafter the same) Article 57(1), 53(1)6, and 22(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 50, Feb. 2, 200); Article 55 subparag. 2, and 11(1)3 of the former Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1); Article 52(1)2, Article 23(1)2 of the former Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc.; Article 10 of the former Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act on Door-to-Door Sales, each of Multi-Door; Article 14 of the Act

B. Defendant 5 and 6: Articles 57(1), 53(1)6, and 22(1) of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the imposition of duties to each multi-level salesman, comprehensive imprisonment), Articles 55 subparag. 2 and 11(1)3 of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the imposition of duties to each multi-level salesman); Article 5(2) of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act; Article 52(1)2 and 23(1)2 of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the imposition of duties to each multi-level salesman; the imposition of duties to each multi-level salesman); Article 30(1)1 and 11(1)2 of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 54(1)1 of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (1)

C. Defendant 7 and 11: Articles 6(1) and 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission; Articles 30 (a) and 51(1)1 and 13(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 30 (a) and 52(1)3 and 23(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 30 (a) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (the establishment of a multi-level marketing organization without registration; the choice of imprisonment); Articles 30 (a)1 of the Criminal Act; 351, 347(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; the selection of limited imprisonment)

(d) Defendant 8, 9, and 10: Articles 6(1) and 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive imprisonment with labor), Articles 51(1)1 and 13(1) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., Articles 30 (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 52(1)3 and 23(2) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive imprisonment with labor, with respect to the fact that a multi-level marketing organization without registration is established, choice of imprisonment with labor)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 7: The latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with punishment as provided for in the heavier special offense, the nature of which is the largest)

(b) Defendant 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for a crime of violating the most severe special provisions)

C. Defendant 5, 6, 8, 9, 10: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 50 of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. due to the Establishment and Operation of Multi-Stage Sales Organizations with the largest punishment (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in a crime of violating the Act on Door

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 11: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 5, 6, 8, 9, 10: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant 8, 9, 10: each Criminal Code Article 62-2

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Jae-jin (Presiding Judge)