Of the convictions and innocences of the lower judgment, the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Most of the investors of this case purchased the land of this case with the intention to receive the allowance, and the registration of transfer of ownership or provisional registration of the land of this case is merely the disguised transaction of real transactions, because it was against the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. due to the misconception of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, the fact that the defendants received money from investors as the price for the purchase of land is that they actually engaged in monetary transactions under the pretext of goods transactions.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The legal principle of the court below's decision on violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act due to the payment of economic benefits to the recruitment of assistant multi-stage salesmen itself is related to the case in which allowances to be paid to assistant multi-stage salesmen have been set according to the ratio of sales amount, and the case in which allowances are uniformly paid to the

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged based on the above legal principles is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

The lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendants [Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, Defendant B: imprisonment for two years, and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

) Fine of 30,000,000) is too unhued and unjust.

There is no fact that Defendants A and B promised to pay a large amount of allowances to the victims, or that the price of each land of this case increases considerably.

Nevertheless, on the basis of the statements of the victim AO and AU without credibility, the above defendants' deception of the possibility of developing each of the lands of this case and the payment of allowances is found guilty.