The judgment below

Of them, all parts of the judgment against the remaining Defendants except Defendant BH are reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 22(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act stipulating that Defendants A, B, C, D, AX, and B are to regulate multi-level marketing operators (hereinafter “Door-to-Door Sales Act”). Since the above Defendants are merely multi-level marketing operators, the above Defendants cannot be punished as a violation of the above provision.

B. Defendant AX, F, M, N, X,N, and AW 1) The above Defendants are deemed to be BH (hereinafter “BH”).

(2) Defendant F, M, N, X, N, and W did not have any intention to commit a violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act. Defendant F, M, N, X, N, and W did not have to purchase certain goods to become multi-level marketing salespersons, and did not impose any burden of KRW 50,00 or more on them.

C. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act defines “multi-level marketing business entity” as “person who establishes or manages and operates a multi-level marketing organization to engage in multi-level marketing business,” and “multi-level marketing business entity” as “person who has joined a multi-level marketing organization as a salesman.” Article 22(1) of the same Act limits the subject who is obligated to prohibit multi-level marketing business entity from imposing any burden on multi-level marketing business entity to “multi-level marketing business entity.”

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to whether the above Defendants constituted a multi-level marketing organization, the above Defendants were active as the salesperson of BH, and Defendant B, etc.