All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant B and C are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles has no intention to commit embezzlement or to obtain illegal gains.

D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) is substantially one of the defendants.

In order to raise D's operating funds, etc., the Defendant invested more than KRW 2 billion in D, such as his own money and the money borrowed from a third party, etc., and transferred D's corporate funds only on the premise that he was paid part of D's funds.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B (U.S.) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have been unaware of committing a crime committed by A, etc., and there was no principal offender's intention.

The defendant does not have any experience in running a multi-level company, but enters D, which is more early than other people, became the head of the headquarters, and only belongs to the secret fraud of A, etc., and it does not intend to commit fraud and do not commit aiding and abetting.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor (defendant B and C) is the joint principal offender of the crime of violation of the Act on the Fraud and Door-to-Door Sales, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Door Sales Act") by the public prosecutor (defendant B and C).

The above Defendants, along with A, recognized the nature of the D business as the class of the head of the headquarters, recruited and managed assistant multi-stage salesmen, and received high-amount allowances.

The above Defendants shared part of the acts of action indispensable to commit the crime of fraud and door-to-door Sales Act with A.

The lower court’s sentence against the above Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Defendant

As to the Defendant’s assertion of the same purport as that of the lower court’s judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined as follows.

The representative director of the company or his representative director.