2018No1348 A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Fraud;

(c) Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act;

(d) Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission;

2018 early 413, and each application for compensation filed in accordance with 490

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

Defendants

Degrho-ho (prosecution) and Kim Jong-tae (Trial)

Attorney Seo-sung (for the defendant A)

Law Firm Dongin Law LLC, Attorneys Kim Jong-min, Lee Jong-ho, and Park Jong-ho

(For the defendant B, C, and F)

Law Firm aiming at Law Firm, Attorneys Ba-hee, and Park Dong-ju (for defendant D)

Law Firm Mailing, Attorney Kang Tae-soo, and Kim Il-il (Defendant E)

Law Firm Mara Lease, Attorneys Lee Jin-sin (for defendant G)

1. KL (2018 early 413);

2. KM (2018 early 490);

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gohap1144 decided May 4, 2018 and 2017

early 3225, 3226, 3229, 3231, 3232, and 3270 Each application for compensation

November 8, 2018

1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for 7 years and 6 months. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 1-2 (Defendant A) and the annexed Table 1-4 (Defendant A) Nos. 1-4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud shall be acquitted, respectively.

2. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six years.

Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the number of offenses listed in the attached Table 2-2 (Defendant B) and the attached Table 2-4 (Defendant B) list of offenses shall be as follows: The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud shall be acquitted.

3. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C shall be reversed. Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six years.

Of the facts charged against Defendant C, the number of offenses listed in the attached Table 3-2 (Defendant C) and attached Table 3-4 (Defendant C) shall be as follows: The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud shall be acquitted.

4. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant D is reversed. Defendant D is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and six months. Defendant D is not guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) as stated in the separate list of crimes in the attached Table 4-3 among the charges against Defendant D (Defendant D) and of fraud.

5. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant E shall be reversed. Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years.

Of the facts charged against Defendant E, the number of offenses listed in the attached Table 5-2 (Defendant E) and the attached Table 5-4 (Defendant E) list of offenses shall be as follows: The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

6. The part of the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant F is reversed. Defendant F shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years.

Of the facts charged against Defendant F, each of the sequences Nos. 6-2 (Defendant F) and Nos. 6-4 (Defendant F) listed in the separate sheet of crime Nos. 6-4 (Defendant F), and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and fraud is acquitted.

Of the facts charged against Defendant F, the prosecution against the fraud of the victim KN listed in [Attachment 6-1] No. 92 (Defendant F) is dismissed.

7. Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant G is reversed. Defendant G is acquitted.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

8. All of the applicants for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Of the facts charged against Defendant C, the lower court dismissed each public prosecution on each of the frauds listed in the crime sight table (N) Nos. 66 (N), 218 (0), 233 (P), 1181 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court as to the facts charged against Defendant C, and ② Of the facts charged against Defendant F, the lower court dismissed each public prosecution on each of the above parts as to the frauds listed in the crime sight table (Defendant F), 38 (R), 460 (S), 638 (T), 908 (U), 1105 (V) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. Accordingly, the aforementioned parts were separated and finalized, and excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

B. The lower court dismissed an application for compensation filed by H, I, J, K, L, or M (Seoul Central District Court 2017 early 3225, 3226, 3229, 3231, 3232, 3232, and 3270). However, pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part of the rejection of the said application for compensation, which became immediately final and conclusive, shall be excluded from the scope of this court’s

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A2

The punishment sentenced by the court below (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, C, and F

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) Defendant B, C, and F did not induce victims to the effect that they guarantee the principal per game machine and the high-income amount of KRW 500,600 per month.

Defendant B, C, and F deceptiond from W and Y as the main offender and sold game machine, and do not have the intent to commit fraud, and therefore do not recognize the crime of fraud. W, Y sold the game machine in Korea through X (hereinafter referred to as “X”) and Z (hereinafter referred to as “Z”) and ordered Defendant B, C, and F to operate the game machine again in Korea and pay profits generated from the operation of the game machine in the U.S. upon entrustment (hereinafter referred to as “instant business”). However, Defendant B, C, and F were individuals who sell the game machine, not employees of X and Z, and did not participate in the said company’s business management and accounting. Therefore, it was not known that the sales proceeds of the game machine and the operating profits of the game machine in Korea and the U.S. were not erroneous.

Defendant B, C, and F did not agree with W, Y. Defendant B and C cannot be recognized from the initial time of the business solely on the ground that they were a member of the game machine business in the early stage, and from the time they become a class holder on Defendant F solely on the ground that they were a member of the game machine business.

Even if the above deception, the criminal intent of deception, and the conspiracy relation are recognized, it is necessary to exclude the amount corresponding to the part of the above victim's entrusted management fees and the amount corresponding to the part of the additional purchase of the game machine from the amount of deception of the victim AX, so it is not possible to apply Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Economic Crimes Act"), and the scope of liability should be limited to each of the pertinent headquarters to which the defendant B, C, and F belongs and each of the victims of D.

On the other hand, each list of crimes committed by Defendant B, C, and F includes the part in which each victim's purchase amount is inconsistent with the facts, and the part in which the accomplice purchases by lending his own name or his relative name.

In addition, since the part concerning defendant F 9 (KN) Nos. 99 (KN) in the judgment of the court below against the defendant F is the part of the purchase by the defendant F, the relative precedent should be applied.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

B) Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act and the Regulation on the Act on the Regulation of Unauthorized-to-Door Receipt, etc., were aware that Defendant B, C, and F are using a multi-level similar organization, or there was no intention or illegality awareness as to the fact that the transaction of goods, etc. was practically conducted by pretending to the transaction of goods, etc., nor did

Article 24 (1) 1 (b) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Door-to-Door Sales Act”) against Defendant B, C, and F is a applicable provision of the Act, and the prosecutor, in collusion with W, etc., concluded a sales contract for goods, etc. with the salesperson by pretending the transaction of goods, etc. using a multi-level similar organization, and did not supply the corresponding goods, etc. without any justifiable reason, and indicted Defendant B, C, and F. The other party to the act of violating the Door-to-Door Sales Act, which was prosecuted, is called “sales Board” and the subject matter of payment is “support allowance”. However, the crime committed against Defendant B, C, and F included the part of payment of profits (entrusted management fees) other than support allowances, and this part cannot be found guilty.

On the other hand, the list of crimes against Defendant B, C, and F in each judgment of the court below is not inconsistent with the facts.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of violating the Door-to-Door Sales Act and the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission (hereinafter “Act”) among the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the relevant legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B, C, and F (the imprisonment of Defendants B, C, 7 years of imprisonment, and 6 years of imprisonment of Defendants F) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant D3

1) Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the application of the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act has reported the principal offender of W and Y criminal facts, punishment shall be mitigated in accordance with the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant D (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant E

1) The fact that Defendant E was a salesperson of the game machine of a substitute position by mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle as to the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), fraud, cannot be recognized as the criminal intent of defraudation as stated in this part of the facts charged, and a public contest relationship.

Even if it is recognized that there is a conspiracy relationship, the scope of liability should be limited to the victims of the second headquarters to which Defendant E belongs.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant E guilty on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, thereby recognizing the criminal intent and conspiracy of defraudation from the time when Defendant E became the substitute position.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant E (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant G

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) The violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), and the fraud committed by Defendant G believed that the instant business was operated normally by deception from WW andY, and thus, the intent of deception and fraud as stated in this part of the facts charged is not recognized. Defendant G was not recognized. Defendant G, in substance, merely performed the above role by taking the position of “head of department” in a special situation where there was no higher class to manage the Gangseo branch, and there was no need for a person to receive entrusted management fees, allowances, etc. from the head office located in Seoul, and deliver them to the subordinate and class members. Defendant G merely received allowances or business subsidies from sales of the game machine as a class member, and only performed the above role. Defendant G is not recognized as a public-private relationship with W,Y and public-private relationship.

Even if the criminal intent of deception, deception, and conspiracy relation is recognized, the scope of liability should be limited to the part of the victims of the Gangseo branch in the five headquarters to which the defendant G belongs.

On the other hand, the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below against Defendant G includes the part that the amount of each victim's purchase is not inconsistent with the facts, and the part that the accomplices borrowed from their own name or their relative's name and that the crime of fraud is not constituted.

In addition, since the part 96 (KO) Nos. 996 (KO) in the judgment of the court below against Defendant G is the part purchased by Defendant G’s spouse, the relative precedent should be applied.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

B) The violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and the Act on the Receipt of Similar Payments was committed by Defendant G with the belief that the actual game machine was sold, and prepared an entrusted management contract for the game machine with investors, and there was no intention to use a multi-level similar organization, or to make a de facto monetary transaction, citing the transaction of goods, etc., but did not specify the principal guarantee.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant G (one year of imprisonment and two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment ex officio due to changes in indictment; and

In this Court, the prosecutor changed the remainder of the charges against Defendant A, B, D, E, and Defendant C, and F, with the exception of the charges dismissed by the lower court, to the following [the revised charges in paragraph (1)]. The prosecutor applied for amendments to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud (hereinafter “Defendant A”). The part “Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act” in the part “from September 6, 2011 to January 5, 2017,” and the part “from September 6, 2011 to January 5, 2017” below (the revised charges in paragraph (2)). The court requested amendments to the Act.

The subject of the adjudication was changed by permitting it. [The facts charged as modified in paragraph (1)]

A. Defendant A conspired with the above W, etc. from around September 6, 201 to January 5, 201, Defendant A: (a) deceiving victims; (b) delivered KRW 6,875,00,00 from the victim AX for investment deposit; (c) KRW 70 billion to KRW 70 billion per victim from around 70 billion; (d) obtained KRW 70 billion per victim from around 70,70,000 for investment deposit; and (e) obtained KRW 6,875,00 from around 70,000 for investment deposit; and (e) obtained KRW 70,000 to below 5 billion per victim from around 70,000 for investment deposit; (e) obtained KRW 70,000 for each victim from around 70,000 for investment deposit; (e) obtained KRW 70,70,000 for each victim from around 70,000; and (e) obtained KRW 270,700,00.36

Upon receipt, 316,314,160,00 won was acquired by fraud.

C. Defendant C4) In collusion with the above W, from April 201 to March 1, 201, Defendant 2, from around 101 to around 2016, Defendant 2 conspired with the above victims with the above amount of KRW 300 million per victim from KRW 50 million to KRW 500 million per victim from KRW 300,000 (the sum of the revised amount is KRW 25,790,270,00), Defendant 30 through 49,51 through 204, 206 through 219, 221 to 174, 1176 through 1704, and the sum of the revised amount is KRW 300,000 per victim from KRW 150,000,000 (the sum of the revised amount is KRW 109,89,60,000,000,00).

Degnating victims, as described in Appendix 5-1 (Defendant E) Nos. 1 in the amended sum of crimes

In this context, at least 6,875,00,00 won for each victim AX 5 billion won or more from 2.7 billion won for investment, and the victim KP et al. (at least 61,974,70,000 won for each victim) received an amount of 5 billion won or more for investment of 5 billion won or more from 2.7 billion won for 4 billion won for 5 billion won or more from 2.7 billion won for each victim, as described in 73 through 3.68, and the defendant deceivings the victim from 205 billion won or more for each victim from 3.7 billion won for investment (at least 4.7 billion won for each victim, total amount of 5 billion won or more from 4.7 billion won for 5 billion won or more for each victim, as described in 1.6 billion won or more for each victim from 205 billion won or more for 5 billion won for investment, as described in 3.7 billion won or more for each victim.5 billion won for each victim.

As stated in [Attachment 7] 23 through 2085, the Defendant obtained respectively an amount of less than KRW 500 million per victim B, etc. (a total of KRW 133,319,920,000) from the victim B, etc. as investment money, and acquired the sum of total investments (a total of modified amount) KRW 150,794,520,000 from the victim’s B, etc. (a total of KRW 17,474,60,00) and entered the amount of less than KRW 500,00 from November 12, 2016 to January 5, 2017 (a total of KRW 17,47,875,00,00) by deceiving the victims as above, and entered the sum of KRW 150,500,000 for each victim’s investment (a total of KRW 700,700,000,000) from the victim’s 2050,751506.

[Criminal Facts amended in Paragraph (2)]

A. From September 6, 201 to January 5, 2017, Defendant A received total of KRW 316,237,160,000 from many victims, as indicated in the [Attachment 1-1 List (Defendant A) Nos. 1 to 3363. However, Defendant B received total of KRW 316,314,160,00 from many victims from July 27, 201 to January 5, 201, as indicated in the [Attachment 2-1] Correction List (Defendant B] Nos. 1 to 33666. Defendant C received total of KRW 316,314,160,00 from many victims. From April 2, 2011 to November 1, 2016, Defendant C-1 to 300,301 to 1300,301 to 1305,300,000 column of crime No. 13030.

D. From April 9, 201 to August 31, 2015, Defendant D received total of KRW 52,183,830,000 from many victims as indicated in the [Attachment 4-1 List No. 1 to 1031, and Defendant E received total of KRW 52,183,830,00 from many victims. From December 1, 2013 to January 5, 2017, Defendant E received total of KRW 316,314,160,00 from many victims, and from around 1 to 3368, Defendant C did not receive total of KRW 30,00 from the victims, the total amount of KRW 1 to 6-1,00 from April 1, 2011 to December 10, 2015, Defendant C conspired with Defendant C received KRW 10 to 3014,00,000 from the majority of the victims (the total amount of KRW 10,1401,014.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the guilty part against Defendant A, B, D, E, and G (including the innocent part of the reasons for Defendant E) and Defendant C and F can no longer be maintained. However, among the judgment below, the guilty part against Defendant A, B, D, E, and G (including the innocent part of the reasons for Defendant E) and the guilty part against Defendant C and F are reversed ex officio as above. However, even if there are reasons for reversal of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as seen above, the aforementioned part of the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of this court.

Therefore, unlike the above, the above Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles shall be examined.

4. Judgment on the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles in relation to Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G

A. Judgment on the premise

1) Determination as to the instant project

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the court below judged the project of this case as follows, and the judgment of this court is also identical to the judgment of the court below.

A) The instant business structure is a multi-level financial company in which WY actually sought investment from investors on the ground of the U.S. game room business type without intent to link the business with the business of selling games in Korea and the U.S. game room business. As such, the instant business structure is a typical multi-level financial company that pays profits to existing investors with the investment funds of new investors.

① On November 24, 2009, WY established FM (hereinafter referred to as “FM”), sold health food, such as FN and FO, and commenced a game machine sales business on January 11, 201. On January 11, 201, WW andY established the company’s trade name in X, and closed the business, and continued the same game machine sales business on September 201, following the same game machine sales business.

② Around the said contract period, X and Z sold the game machine to investors, and the investors entrusted the operation of the said game machine to the FJ, an affiliated company in the U.S., for three years, and X and Z entered into an entrusted management contract with the content that the ownership of the game machine belongs to X and 2 when the contract period expires.

③ According to the terms of the above contract, X and Z remitted the proceeds received from investors in the U.S. to the FJ, and the FJ pays proceeds from purchasing the game machine in the U.S. and operating the game room to X and Z. In fact, there was no difference between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea as well as sending the first investment amount of one billion won to the U.S. (FJ) during the period from 2009 to 2011. There was no difference between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea. 4X and Z did not have any business operated in itself except for the business in connection with the U.S. FJ., in fact, there was no business that actually used the money received from investors in the game machine for the payment of profits to the existing investors and the company operation expenses, etc., and the FJ has only generated profits from the operation of the game machine owned in the U.S. regardless of the sale of the game machine in Korea to the extent of its profits.

⑤ As X and Z, the game machine sales business of the Republic of Korea and the U.S. game room business can not be linked at all, and the Korean business itself does not have any profit, the amount of investment received, resulting in the increase in the burden of paying profits and allowances to the previous investors. However, W/Y operated by the said company was continuously selling the game machine as if the Korean game machine sales and the U.S. game room business were substantially linked.

B) The sales revenue and allowances of the instant project

① x and Z have the structure of selling one game machine in KRW 11 million (the initial period was KRW 8.8 million from around 2013 to around 9.9 million, and the amount was changed from around 2015 to KRW 11 million) and paying to investors KRW 500,000 or KRW 600,000 per month for 36 months. Ultimately, the structure was to pay to investors a sum of KRW 18,00,000 or KRW 21,60,000 per month (entrusted management commission) for 3 years. Ultimately, taking into account the company’s profit and expenses, it is difficult to continue operating the business of this case as long as it does not reach a reasonable level, even if sales commission, etc., which is considered below.

② A class structure consisting of the chief of the headquarters, the Minister, the bureau chief, the office chief, and the head of the bureau (in addition to the class members, there was a side business shop other than the class members), and the Z was composed of the chief of the headquarters, the chief of the division, the director, the representative, and the chief. If the above class members sell one game machine, X and Z paid KRW 500,000 for sales allowances to the class members who sold the game machine. X and Z paid sales allowances according to the class other than sales allowances. X and Z paid 50,000 won to the chief of the office, 20,000 won to the chief of the bureau, 10,000 won to the chief of the headquarters, and 10,000 won to the chief of the headquarters, 50,000 won to the representative representative, and 100,000 won to the head of the headquarters, respectively.

③ Z and X paid fixed allowances according to class other than sales allowances and sales support. In other words, X paid fixed allowances of KRW 2 million to the head of the headquarters every month, KRW 1.5 million to the Director, KRW 1.2 million to the Director-General, and KRW 800,000 to the Director-General, and KRW 800,000 to the Director-General, and KRW 10% of the profits of the game machine directly sold (entrusted management fees). After that, X paid fixed allowances to the head of the headquarters every month after eliminating the attendance allowance, X paid KRW 3 million to the Director-General, KRW 2 million to the Director-General, and KRW 1.5 million to the Director-General, and also paid the same amount as above.

④ Ultimately, X and Z sold one game machine amounting to KRW 11,00,000,000,000 was a structure for immediately selling the game machine to the class and class members with sales allowances and sales subsidies. Accordingly, X and Z paid approximately KRW 35.1 billion as sales subsidies, KRW 20 billion as sales allowances, KRW 5.1 billion as sales allowances, and KRW 5.5.1 billion as sales allowances, and paid KRW 10% as allowances, etc. regardless of the actual performance of the project.

C) The abnormal operating method and explanation of the instant project

① He explained that no direct expression is required to ensure that the proceeds are fixed to investors through education, explanation, etc. that X and Z shall ensure that the proceeds are paid to investors through the education, presentation, etc. However, under the view that the proceeds are not paid at least KRW 500,000 per month or KRW 60,000 per month, and instead, under the view that the proceeds are not paid at the same time due to natural disasters, etc., the salespersons have explained to the effect that even if the proceeds are paid less than the proceeds due to natural disasters, etc., they should be paid even if the proceeds are paid at the same time. Furthermore, in fact, Article 12 of the consignment management contract entered into with investors, the FJ has explained to the effect that the proceeds are actually guaranteed to investors. Nevertheless, the term “X and Z” provided for in the consignment management contract entered into with investors that the average return on profit can be confirmed as determined by the FJ, and that there is no direct explanation to the salespersons as to whether they do not violate the law or regulations.

② Around 2016, X and Z failed to possess mobile phone or tape recorders, and even after purchasing a game machine, it was intended to listen to the project presentation. In addition, X and Z intended to explain to the Financial Supervisory Service that, if the salesperson withdrawss more than KRW 20 million to investors, it would be reported to the Financial Supervisory Service, so it would be 19 million in advance. And in X, transaction such as the payment of purchase price and receipt of earnings was possible through the account, but after moving to Z, the investors were forced to trade only in cash and check.

③ At the time of operating the Z, W andY set up a fingerprint recognition device in the accounting room operated by Defendant A and BJ to strictly limit access to the class of personnel other than W andY, and allow access to the accounting room only upon W,Y or permission from the accounting department. On the other hand, the accounting department was closed, such as ordering Defendant A and BJ not to exchange with salespersons.

2) Progress of the relevant case

The following facts are recognized by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, or are significant in this court.

① With respect to the instant business, WY was indicted for violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), fraud, and door-to-door Sales Act.

On January 18, 2018, the first instance court rendered a not-guilty verdict on fraud against the class of personnel with insufficient proof of deception, and sentenced W to 17 years of imprisonment, and sentenced W to 15 years of imprisonment (the Seoul High Court Decision 2017Dahap24, 277 (Merger), 496 (Merger))). On January 18, 2018, W, Y and Prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the first instance court. The appellate court rendered a not-guilty verdict on fraud against the above class of personnel with the above facts modified in the appellate court on July 18, 2018, and dismissed the public prosecution against W, and sentenced W to 16 years of imprisonment and 14 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining facts charged (the Seoul High Court Decision 200Do1838, Jul. 28, 2018; 200Do18301, Jul. 28, 2018). 2018).

② AA (Management Director), AB (Director 2 in the final class), AC (Director 3 in the final class), AD (Director 1 in the final class), AE (Director 1 in the final class), AF (Director 5 in the final class), AG (Director 5 in the final class), and AH (Director 5 in the final class) were indicted for violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), fraud, and door-to-Door Sales Act in relation to the instant project (hereinafter referred to as “eight persons, including A, when named in the above eight persons).

On February 9, 2018, the first instance court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the part prior to the time of participation in the charges against AB, AC, AE, AF, AG, and AH, and rendered a judgment on the exemption from punishment or the dismissal of public prosecution against the fraud to which the relative precedent is applied among the charges against eight persons, including AA, etc., and sentenced AA, AB, and AC to seven years of imprisonment, AD, AE, AF, AF, AG, and AH for each of seven years of imprisonment, AD, AE, AF, AG, and AH (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da844 Decided February 9, 2018). On the judgment of the first instance court, eight persons, including AA, and other public prosecutors appealed. The appellate court deemed that the part found guilty on August 17, 2018 was not deceiving.

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict on frauds with errors in the part of frauds against the grade-holders, the purchase amount in the list of crimes, etc., and dismissed prosecutions, and sentenced AA, AB, and AC to six years of imprisonment, AD, AE, AF, AG, and H for each five years of imprisonment (Seoul High Court Decision 2018No686, August 17, 2018). 8 persons, including A, filed an appeal against the above appellate judgment, and the case is continuing to be in the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do14019).However, the Court of Appeals against the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to frauds.

1) The argument about the criminal intent of defraudation: Defendant B, C, E, F, and G

A) Relevant legal principles

The willful negligence as a subjective element of a crime must be aware of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and furthermore, there should be an internal intent to accept the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether an offender permitted the possibility of occurrence of a crime should be determined based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of an act that was externally revealed and the situation of an act, without depending on the statement of the offender, in light of how the general public can assess the possibility of occurrence of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5075, Sept. 10, 2009).

In light of these legal principles, this case is examined.

B) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by Defendant E, including Defendant E’s legal statement, the lower court recognized the criminal intent of defraudation of Defendant B, C, E, F, and G.

The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances based on the judgment based on the aforementioned premise, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B, C, F, and G, for whom the intent of defraudation was not recognized, the said Defendants received the investment money by soliciting the investment to guarantee the high-profit profit of investors by soliciting the investment, while recognizing the circumstances that it is difficult for the said Defendants to pay the profits to investors in collusion with W,Y, and Y in sequence, as well as that it would not be possible for them to pay the profits to investors as agreed upon, or if a certain stage expires, at least dolusently or at least by concealing the fact that it is difficult to pay the principal of the investment

① With the exception of KRW 1 billion for the initial investment, X and Z received money from investors as the purchase price for the game machine, and did not transfer it to the FJ of the United States, and the FJ did not transfer the proceeds of the game machine operation business to X and Z. In the absence of money between the United States and the Republic of Korea, as long as the Plaintiff operated the business by paying high-rate profits to investors and paying allowances in a manner of considerable amount of money to the salespersons and class, Mari had no choice but to raise the funds of X and Z.

② Although X and Z paid monthly profits to investors should be calculated on the basis of monthly profits from the game machine businesses operated by the FJ, X and Z paid almost fixed amount of profits without going through these processes. In addition, X and Z did not present specific data to investors regarding the number of U.S. games, the number of game instruments, details of sales, or amount of profits.

③ Even if the FJ’s game room business was operated normally, X and Z should pay investors earnings and pay allowances and benefits to class employees, and in order to cope with the company’s operating expenses, a high amount of profits from the instant business should accrue. This was at a level that is difficult to expect ordinary businesses.

④ Y was engaged in the previous ice sales business, and FM was a company that sells health food, such as FN and FO, and W/Y did not have any special business experience or ability related to the game machine operation business. To continue to sell the game machine, X and Z did not have any specific plan such as new establishment of the game site in the United States and expansion of the installation of the game machine.

(6) Defendants B, C, D, and E, as the representatives of each head office or head office, have overall control over each headquarters’s business and managed subordinate officers and sales officers. Defendants F, and G, as the chief office or head office officers, assist the head of the headquarters, managed subordinate officers and sales officers, and accordingly, received sales allowances or sales subsidies for their game machine sales or subordinate officers and sellers. The duties of the head of the headquarters or head office were not required to have special capacity or experience, but to have been arbitrarily given or increased by anyone, taking into account the number of game machine purchases, sales performance, personality, etc. Defendant B, C, F, and G, regardless of their own ability, and received allowances, etc. in excess of ordinary levels over a long time.

⑥ At around 2012, W stated that there was a statement that certain classes of shareholders would purchase the machinery from the United States and operate it as an alternative alternative to pay profits from the sale proceeds coming from the United States and entered the Republic of Korea. On the fact that YDo offset is conducted, W stated that there was a statement that if you would be asked by class and sales members, they would inform of the fact that it would be offset, and if there were investors who have the Y certificate, I would like to explain the content of offset. W and Y's assertion would eventually pay profits to the existing investors as the purchase proceeds of the game machine received from investors in Korea, which is the same meaning as so-called so-called ‘competing' method.

7) Many of the participants stated that they were aware of the fact that they were deposited in Category C-1 Company or received money from investors, and that they would have been aware of the fact that they would again be paid as business funds. In other words, (a) H(5) was aware of the fact that there were 6 U.S. game machine sales proceeds and that there was no doubt that there were 7 U.S. games sales proceeds would have been paid for 6 U.S. dollars, and that there was no suspicion that there were 6 U.S. Games sales proceeds would have been paid for 10 U.S. dollars (5 U.S. dollars). 6 U.S. 201, U.S.E. 201, U.S.E. 2011, 7 U.S.E. 2011, 7 U.S. 2011, 2015.

③ Many of the class or investors asked the company or superior class of the company about whether the company is normally operating with a question about the business structure of X and Z, and X and Z used the company or superior class of the company. The defendant D set off around the time of the change from X to Z. The above defendant was also replaced by the office location while changing the company from X, and the representative director was changed. The above defendant did not provide any specific solution for the change in the name of the company's shares and contract name, and it was an important factor that is suspected of the company's business structure due to a sudden increase in the number of game machines sales.

① Defendant B, C, F, and G believe that the horses were only W and Y as they were. However, considering the abnormal business methods of X and Z, the structure of paying excessive commission and allowances, the position and working period of the above Defendants’ above companies, the amount of sales commission and business subsidies received by the above Defendants, and the details of specific participation in the instant business, it appears that the above Defendants could have sufficiently known that the instant business was not operated normally. Nevertheless, the continuous participation of the above Defendants in the sales of X and Z games was merely an intentional and outer outcome of such doubt in order to continuously obtain profits, such as high-amount allowances that would be earned as class members.

① Defendant B, C, F, and G visit the game room in which the game machine was installed through the U.S. X and Z, and confirmed that the game machine business was normally carried out in the U.S. Tech. However, in light of the number and size of the game machine buyers and the number of the game machine buyers and the number of the game machine purchases, etc., it seems that the above Defendants visited and confirmed by the above Defendants, as well as the extent of only allowing them to visit the game room only before business hours or formally resolving the game machine operation in the process of the above administration, and the above circumstance alone seems to be insufficient to deem that the circumstances participating in the above administration do not interfere with the recognition of the crime of defraudation (for example, the above administration seems to have been planned for the unity and cooperation of class X and the salesperson).

① Since the aforementioned business method is difficult to be presented in ordinary companies, at least as a salesperson or position who works for the above company is considered to be sufficiently doubtful as to whether the instant business is normally operated (in fact, a number of salespersons or class members expressed a question about the method of operating the instant business).

C) The judgment of this Court

(1) Defendant B, C, E, and F

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the lower court’s determination that recognized the criminal intent of acquiring Defendant B, C, E, and F by deception is acceptable (if the above Defendants were to have suffered damage to purchase a game machine by deception from W, Y, and sold to others, then it would be improper to hold the said Defendants accountable for criminal liability by recognizing a criminal intent and a conspiracy relation from the time they became an initial member of the game machine business or a person of the class on the ground that they were the former member of the game machine business or a person of the class. However, as a result of examining all individual evidence on the above Defendants, it is recognized that the above Defendants were involved in the principal offender’s criminal act with an individually conclusive or incomplete intent, the above assertion cannot be accepted).

Therefore, this part of Defendant B, C, E, and F’s assertion is without merit.

① From around 2010, AC, the head of the 3rd headquarters, became aware of X’s initial headquarters in the lower court’s judgment through Defendant C, and subsequently purchased game games thereafter. At the early stage of the business, Defendant C, the head of the headquarters, was working under the supervision of the head of the headquarters. At that time, there was two headquarterss. At that time, Defendant C was in charge of the head of the headquarters. At that time, the lower court stated that the lower court’s 1534~1535 of the trial record) was the head of the headquarters and the 4th head of the headquarters. BG made a statement to the effect that Defendant C was divided into “Defendant B, the head of the 1534-1535 of the trial record”). At the first time of 2012, Defendant C, the head of the 2013 headquarters, who was the head of the 3rd headquarters, was the head of the 3rd headquarters, and Defendant C was the head of the 2nd trial record.

② Defendant C and D, a member of the prosecution, were naturally aware of the business structure at the time of returning. At the time of the 2nd session, the head of the 5th session, the head of the 5th session, and the head of the 5th session, stated that the Defendant C and D continued to sell the game machine to the effect that it would not be able to enter the U.S., and that it would not be able to carry out the business in return. The Defendant C and D sent the game machine to the head of the 2nd session at the time of the 1st session of the 1st session, and that the 1st session of the 2nd session of the 1st session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 1st session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 2nd session of the 3th session of the company.

③ At the first instance court of the Defendant case, W stated that “I cannot transfer money to the United States any other company, and there was a situation in which I would be unable to transfer money from the company to the United States even in the United States, and the money in X office would be in consultation with the superior class and would have been in operation while making profits to investors (Evidence No. 450).” At the time of the commencement of the instant business at the lower court, W expressed that “I would like to take advantage of the person with multiple levels of business.” From the beginning of the instant business, I distributed profits to investors with investments received from domestic investors. From the beginning of the business, I expressed that I held a countermeasure meeting in relation to the non-transfer of money in the United States. At the end of 2012, I expressed that I would not know that the scope of persons present at the meeting was the head of the headquarters or the shareholder, but I expressed that I would have been aware that I would have been present at the meeting (Evidence No. 1251, Dec. 15, 2017).

④ AA made a statement to the effect that, around 2011, the prosecution continued to enter the game room in Korea with Y, and that, if the purchase price of the game machine in Korea continued to exceed the U.S. as a result of tax, etc., it continued to increase the game machine with earnings, which are punished in the U.S., and that in Korea, it was agreed with the class members who will pay the service fees to consumers as the sales price of the game machine. In the last time, I stated that the game machine would be suspended from selling the game machine to 2,000 and would pay the service fees (Evidence No. 417). AA made a statement to the court below that the class members who consulted with Y at the time of 2,000 were the class members before becoming a member, but it could not be said that there was no specific consultation with the class members before becoming a member. However, at that time, the head of the public trial headquarters, 30-14, the head of the public trial headquarters, 40-2, and 37.

⑤ At the prosecution, Defendant A stated that “Y, W, investing in a foreign country the game machine on the company’s face and gave the proceeds to the consumers, and even if he did not transfer money to a foreign country, Defendant A stated that “A was unable to pay money to a foreign country.” As such, Defendant A made a statement to the same effect at the court below (Evidence No. 257) and Defendant A made a statement to the effect that “A was a member of a first group of members and the horses were to be made, and even if I would have received money from the United States, I would like to pay for 30% of the amount of tax to be collected, I would like to operate the game machine in the United States and pay for the proceeds of sales of the game machine in Korea” (Evidence No. 257).

6) Defendant B stated that the prosecution had a game machine accurately in the U.S. Tex. The game machine was more old and much more than the casino machine actually emitted from the film or television. It did not know how much the profit was actually realized. Then, Defendant B stated that it would be well well known that he was directly going to the U.S. when soliciting investment money (Evidence No. 268).

7) Defendant E stated in the Prosecutor’s Office that “the game machine is established accurately, how profits are paid, and there was no actual game machine. It is unnecessary to explain this fact and that money is received investment (Evidence No. 264).” Defendant E entered X as a salesman at the end of April 2013 upon introduction of AB, which is the motive of KT graduate school, at the lower court. Defendant E asked AB, who went into the two times or the U.S., whether foreign exchange transactions would be accurate, but did not hear accurate answers. Defendant E also stated that it was the same as “IB,” which comes to her own capital and come to know, and that there was no doubt about how to set off or return money.” Defendant E made a statement to the effect that there was no doubt about the method of operation of X, etc., and that there was no doubt about how to pay wages to the account in cash, and that it was difficult to see that it was 80 days off by changing the fee.

④ Defendant F made a statement to the effect that, in comparison with the casino game machine, “the game machine was entered in the prosecution.” Whether the game machine was purchased, whether the purchase amount was remitted to the U.S. does not have any reason to determine whether the entrusted management fee was paid with the proceeds derived from the game site in the U.S..... In fact, there was no interest in the project.” (Evidence No. 267)

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by Defendant G based on the records of the instant case, there is room to deem that Defendant G believed that the instant business was normally operated. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation against Defendant G.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that recognized the criminal intent of defraudation against Defendant G, and this part of the defendant G's argument is with merit (Fraud). We do not make any further determination on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and fraud

① AX office was located on the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AL and the second floor, and two offices followed the instant project after X was closed, are located on the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AM and the third floor.

② From the beginning of the instant business, the 5 headquarters, at which Defendant D (Gung branch) was in charge of the chief of the headquarters, was organized by Gangnam Branch.

③ Defendant G resided in Gangnam-si and worked as an automobile operating employee on May 18, 201, and became X-member upon purchasing the game machine on March 18, 201, and became a member of the class of agent (chief) around March 2014. ④ In principle, members of the position higher than an agent (chief) from among the salespersons of X and Z were in attendance at the office on a daily basis, and when sales of the game machine of the principal or his subordinate (chief of office) are carried out, Defendant G was paid fixed benefits and business subsidies according to the class other than sales allowances paid to the same class as the principal (referring to the sales agent, other than the class, and there was an assistant sales agent).

However, Defendant G did not work every day at X and Z offices since he was residing in Gangnam-gu and operated a motor vehicle business as a main business even after he was represented by his agent (the office chief), and visited the above office only once a month, such as the subsidiary and Z offices. Accordingly, Defendant G did not receive fixed benefits according to the class, and was not given an opportunity to exchange with the class higher than that of the agent (the office chief) every day.

⑤ On the other hand, Defendant D directly managed 5 headquarters Gangnam Branch, but retired from office on August 31, 2015, which was the time X’s closure. Accordingly, Defendant D’s 5 headquarters was managed by each of its subordinate salespersons through three chiefs (AH, AF, and AG) under the following circumstances, without having the head of the headquarters separately, and the 5 headquarters was directly managed by the Z branch.

Y at the lower court, the Defendant G was in the Gangnam Team, and the Defendant D, who was in charge of managing the entrusted management fee in cash every month, was appointed as the chief secretary and was in charge of the above role. (368 pages 1368 of the trial record). (7) The Defendant G stated that the Defendant G was not a person working at or coming out of the company, and thus, he was not aware of the fact that the sales amount in Korea was not remitted to the United States.

8) It is very exceptional that the management director AA is given a position of chief director in this court as a non-standing position. Since Y issues an order, it is well aware that the circumstances are well known, but it was issued for the management of Y regional salespersonss. Defendant G participated in education to the extent that it was possible for Defendant G to do so. At that time, Defendant G did not explain to Defendant G regarding offset disposition, and was limited to snow personnel level. This accords with the above statement of Y.

9) Defendant D stated to the effect that Defendant D, who visited Defendant D’s head of 5 headquarters, was able to change the name of the corporation and transfer the office and take cash in the future at the time of this court’s opening of the office. Defendant D stated to the effect that Defendant D was to retire from office, and that it did not speak about the offset disposition.

0 The chief of the 5 Headquarters AH stated in the lower court that the Defendant D was managed by the company after the Defendant D was posted the chief of the 5 Headquarters at the lower court. The lower court stated that “The Defendant G did not manage the matters known or communicated by the company at the time of delivery” (the trial record 1673 pages).

① The chief of headquarters 5: (a) was aware of the name of the Defendant G at the lower court, but well-known. This is because the Defendant G was in Gangnam, the contact with the lower court was not shaking (the trial record No. 1780 pages). 125 head of headquarters AG stated that “Defendant G was at the lower court and was at least once in one month due to the fact that the Defendant G was in Gangnam, and was at the lower court, and was at a short time in one month (the trial record No. 1836 page 1836 page). AF stated that “The principal class is lower than that of Defendant G, but in fact, the principal class is not lower than that of Defendant G, but did not receive management.” While the business was conducted only in cash and check, Defendant G made a statement that Defendant G was appointed as the chief of the entrusted management fee, etc. at that time, Defendant G was the same.

2) Claim on deception: Defendant B, C, and F

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court recognized the deception by Defendant B, C, and F for the following reasons.

① Except for the initial investment cost of KRW 1 billion, X and Z did not receive money from investors for the purchase price for the game machine and did not transfer it to the FJ of the United States, and the FJ did not transfer the proceeds of the game machine operation business to X and Z. The instant project constitutes the so-called return-type financial fraud in which the investments from new investors are paid to the existing investors.

② Nevertheless, Defendant B, C, and F may use the said game machine as the purchase price for the said game machine by remitting the price paid by the investors to the United States, and obtain considerable profits by operating the said game machine. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the above Defendants’ above acts constituted deception, since they committed the said act, as if they were to make monthly payments to investors by remitting the said earnings to Korea.

③ Defendant B, C, and F alleged that the amount of profits was not specified or the minimum amount was not guaranteed to investors, and that the profits were fluidly known to investors, and thus, they did not deceiving investors. However, as long as the Defendant B, C, and F conducted a business that constitutes a multi-level financial fraud unrelated to real transactions and received investment money under the pretext of purchase of the U.S. game machine and its profits, regardless of whether the said Defendants’ act guarantees fixed profits, such act constitutes deception.

B) The judgment of this Court

Examining the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable.

Therefore, this part of Defendant B, C, and F’s assertion is without merit.

3) The argument on the establishment and establishment period of the public offering relationship: Defendant B, C, E, and F

A) Relevant legal principles

In relation to co-offenders who are engaged in a crime by more than two persons, a public conspiracy is not required under the law, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to do so in order or impliedly, the public conspiracy is established between several persons, and it is necessary to establish such conspiracys or conspiracys, and it is necessary to prove it. However, in a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent while recognizing the facts directly involved in the act of the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements should be proven by the method of proving indirect facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relation with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the situation of the fact by the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do746, Feb. 27, 2004).

In light of these legal principles, this case is examined.

B) The judgment of the court below

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court acknowledged a conspiracy with the Defendant B, C, E, and F by specifying the specific period of solicitation for each of the relevant Defendants, with WW,Y, etc. for the following reasons.

(1) Defendant B andC

(가) 공모관계 성립이 사건 범행의 주범인 T는, 피고인 C, D는 초기 멤버이고 이들과 상의하여 이 사건 사업의 구조와 직급 구조 등을 함께 만들었고 돌려막기 구조에 대하여도 많은 이야기를 나눴기 때문에 돌려막기 방식의 이 사건 사업 구조에 대하여 당연히 알고 있었을 것이고 피고인 B 또한 피고인 C보다도 먼저 근무했기 때문에 이 사건 사업 구조를 알고 있었을 것이라는 취지로 진술하였다.

AA and BJ statements to the same effect as above concerning the working hours of the above Defendants.

Therefore, Defendant B and C are deemed to have been aware of the substance of the instant project since they were involved in the project from the X early, and thus, Defendant B and C may fully recognize the public contest relationship from the time of the initial stage of the instant project, in which they were involved as a salesperson or class.

(B) Specific period of public offering

① Defendant B was the chief of the headquarters around April 2013 and was involved in brain surgery on or around April 2014, and thus, Defendant B’s public relations relationship was established only during the above period. However, Defendant B’s accounting staff stated that Defendant B was a person of the position at which he received fixed benefits from the beginning. AA also stated that Defendant B was a person of the position at which he entered X around April 201, and that Defendant B was a person of the position. Moreover, Defendant B’s son, who was his father, was a person of the position of Defendant B. Since he received brain surgery around April 2014, Defendant B’s Y was considered to have been in charge of brain surgery around 2015, and it was difficult to view that Defendant B’s public relations was suspended from the role of Defendant B’s head of the headquarters at around 2016 and around 2016, Defendant B’s reputation and around 2016.

② Defendant C appears to have been involved as the head of the headquarters from April 201 to April 11, 201, which was the time when the crime was commenced for himself in this case. As such, Defendant C is acknowledged as a conspiracy relationship from April 201 to March 11, 2016.

(2) Defendant E, F

(A) Establishment of a public offering relationship

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that, with respect to Defendant E and F, there is a combination of intent to jointly process the crime of fraud with Defendants, W, and Y, from the time of becoming a class-based person at least as an agent at the headquarters under its jurisdiction.

① On February 11, 2012, Defendant E purchased a game machine from each X on May 1, 2010, Defendant F maintained a trade relationship for a considerable period of time after the purchase of the game machine from each X on May 1, 2010, and became a salesperson again and became a position-based person through the former’s work for a certain period of time. In light of such trade period, the period of such trade, the duration of the sales activities, etc., at least at the time of becoming a position-based person, it appears that

(2) In addition to the net sales allowances to be the class of an agent (office chief), the amount received Z and X shall considerably increase. Defendant E and F shall be paid business subsidies to not only game machines they sold, but also game machines sold by subordinate class officers, as the head of each headquarters, as the head of each headquarters, and the head of each department, but also receive fixed benefits according to class.

④ Defendant E and F received the above allowances according to class, and came to know about the excessive remuneration structure of the instant project more accurately, and in light of the scale of payment of such allowances and earnings, it seems that the instant project is considerably unrealistic.

⑤ Defendant E and F constituted an organization that leads to the lower class by becoming a superior class, thereby receiving high-amount business subsidies and benefits, and inducing investors and encouraging the lower class to sell game instruments in such a way that the said profits are excessive, and the organization of class X and Z itself became the major cause for both the victims.

(B) Specific period of public offering

① Defendant E recognizes the fact that he/she was the chief of office around November 2013. As such, Defendant E may recognize a public contest relationship from December 1, 2013 to January 5, 2017, which is most favorable to the principal as of the time he/she became the chief of office.

② Defendant F demanded that Defendant F was the Director-General around April 2012, and that he was dismissed on September 2015. However, AA made a statement that Defendant F was the job-grade at the time of entry on April 201, that Defendant F was the job-grade at the time of entry, and Defendant F was also the job-grade at the time of entry on September 201, and Defendant F’s father’s management from around December 2016. Accordingly, Defendant F stated that Defendant F was his father’s customer from around April 2011 to December 31, 2015. As such, Defendant F can be recognized as a public-affiliated relationship from around April 2011 to December 31, 2015.)

In light of the circumstances cited by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable, in view of the following circumstances: (a) the lower court’s recognition of the criminal intent to obtain fraud against Defendant B, C, E, and F.

Therefore, this part of Defendant B, C, E, and F’s assertion is without merit.

4) Claim on the limitation of liability for each of its headquarters and each of its members: Defendant B, C, E, and F

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, in light of the following: (a) the circumstance duly admitted and duly examined evidence: (i) the headquarters to which Defendant B(1), C(2), E(2), and F(1) belongs was not operated independently from X and Z; (b) the overall operation of the headquarters was closely linked to each headquarters and all other headquarters under the control and management of X and Z; and (c) the explanation session for the investor was conducted once for the whole participants without classifying the headquarters; and (b) the explanation session for the project was conducted once for the whole participants without classifying the headquarters; and (c) the explanation of each other’s other headquarters, AB(2), AD(1, AH(5) and H(5), etc., the Plaintiff is liable for the entire sales of X and Z as a co-principal.

B) The judgment of this Court

In light of the circumstances indicated by the lower court and the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, i.e., the class members working at each headquarters using the office of the same X and Z; ii) the class of the body at the lower court did not have two or more classes, and the headquarters is divided into the headquarters as the headquarters is generated due to the rise in class; and (iii) the above determination by the lower court is justifiable.

Therefore, this part of Defendant B, C, E, and F’s assertion is without merit.

5) Claim on the amount obtained by deceitation of victim AX: Defendant B, C, and F

A) Relevant legal principles

If the defendant received an investment money from the victims without the intent or ability to properly pay the principal and profit, and received it through deception, it constitutes a crime of fraud each time the investment money was received. If the defendant returned the investment money received to the victims, but received the investment money continuously in the manner of receiving the money again, the total amount of the investment money received through deception shall be the amount of profit under Article 3 (1) of the Specific Economic Crimes Act, and the amount of profit shall not be calculated by deducting the returned principal and profit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1614, May 26, 2006).

B) Determination

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the head of 5 headquarters AG, upon delegation from the victim AX who started to purchase the game machine by hearing the explanation of the project of this case and deceiving the game machine, can find the fact that if the entrusted management fee for the part of the game machine purchase of the victim AX each month is paid directly to the victim AX, the victim AX is kept in lieu of direct payment, and only the amount is notified and the game machine was additionally purchased in compliance with the amount in the victim AX name, and if there is a shortage of notification, the victim AX's purchase of the game machine was managed by the method of receiving it (Evidence No. 484-7). We examine these facts in light

AG’s above management method is to receive entrusted management fees, which are earnings from the purchase price of the previous game machine in the victim AX every month, in lieu of the victim AX, and to use them in accordance with its purport with delegation from the victim AX to re-investment in the additional purchase price of the game machine.

This is because AG paid the entrusted management fee to the victim AX, but it can be seen that it is the same as obtained by receiving the money again from the victim AX as the purchase price for the additional game machine, the entrusted management fee paid for the additional purchase price for the game machine shall be included in the amount of profit under Article 3 (1) of the Specific Economic Crimes Act.

Therefore, this part of Defendant B, C, and F’s assertion is without merit.

6) The argument about the disagreement in the purchase price on the list of crimes in the holding of the court below: Defendant B, C, and F shall be examined as to Defendant B, C, and F in accordance with the decision on the modification of the indictment in accordance with the court's decision on the modification of the indictment in this case, based on the amount of each correction column of the attached Table 2-1 Crimes List (Defendant B), attached Table 3-1 Crimes List (Defendant C), attached Table 3-1 Crimes List (Defendant C), and attached Table 6-1 Crimes List (Defendant F).

According to the records of this case (Evidence No. 458 sales files), among the revised charges against Defendant B, C, and F, the parts of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 2-2 (Defendant B), the annexed Table 3-2 (Defendant C), the annexed Table 6-2 (Defendant F) and the annexed Table 6-2 (Defendant F) do not have sales details, and each of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 2-3 (Defendant B), the annexed Table 3-3 (Defendant C), the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F), and the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F) are calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the pertinent victims. Therefore, there is no proof of crime regarding this part.

Therefore, this part of the defendant B, C, and F's argument is with merit.

7) The argument about the part purchased by the class holder in the name of himself/herself or his/her family members: Defendant B, C, and F's argument about the part concerning the defendant B, C, and F shall be examined based on the amount of each correction column of the attached Table 2-1 Crimes List (Defendant B), attached Table 3-1 Crimes List (Defendant C), attached Table 3-1 Crimes List (Defendant C), and attached Table 6-1 Crimes List (Defendant F) (Defendant F) according to the Court's decision on the amendment of indictment.

According to the records of this case, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 2-4 (Defendant B), the annexed Table 3-4 (Defendant C), and the annexed Table 6-4 (Defendant F) among the facts charged with the above changes against Defendant B, C, and F shall be deemed to have been known of the substance of the business of this case at the time of purchase of the game machine due to lending the name to the class of X, Z or to the family members, etc., and there is no proof of a crime in this part.

Therefore, this part of the defendant B, C, and F's argument is with merit.

8) The argument about the application of the precedent of relatives: Defendant F's argument is examined based on the sequences of the attached Table 6-1 Crimes Table (Defendant F) which is the revised charge concerning the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and the fraud in accordance with the court's decision on the amendment of indictment.

According to the records of this case, the victim KN listed in [Attachment 6-1] No. 92 among the facts charged with the above alteration against Defendant F is the number of Defendant F. This part of the facts charged can be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint pursuant to Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above victim filed a complaint, the procedure of prosecution is invalid in violation of the provisions of law.

Therefore, this part of Defendant F’s assertion is with merit.

9) Discretionary determination for Defendant A, D, and E: The portion of the disagreements with the purchase price on the list of crimes, and the portion purchased in the name of the class or his family, etc.

As seen earlier, the judgment on the difference between the purchase price in the list of crimes against Defendant B, C, and F, and the part on the purchase price in the name of the co-defendant in the name of the principal or his family members is common to Defendant A, D, and E, which are co-defendants, shall be examined ex officio. This part shall be examined as follows: (a) according to the decision to amend the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Attached 1-1 Crimes List (Defendant A), Attached 41 Crimes List (Defendant D), Attached 5-1 Crimes List (Defendant E), each correction column (Defendant E).

According to the records of this case (Evidence No. 458 Sales Files), each of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 1-2 (Defendant A) and the annexed Table 5-2 (Defendant E) among the facts charged in the above changes against Defendant A and E does not exist, and each of the annexed Table 1-3 (Defendant A), the annexed Table 4-2 (Defendant D), and the annexed Table 5-3 (Defendant E) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the pertinent victims. Thus, there is no proof of a crime regarding this part.

According to the records of this case, among the facts charged by Defendant A, D, and E, the number of offenses listed in Appendix 1-4 (Defendant A), Annex 4-3 (Defendant D), and Annex 5-4 (Defendant E) shall be deemed to have been known and not deceiving the business entity of this case at the time of purchase of the game machine due to lending the name to the class of X, Z or to the family members, etc.

Therefore, among the guilty parts of the lower court against Defendant A, D, and E, the part without proof of crime should be reversed.

10) Sub-decisions

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below is justified. ① Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and fraud part of the judgment of the court below. ② Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant B; Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against Defendant B; ③ Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant C; Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant D; Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant E; Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); and there is a ground for reversal of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against Defendant G.

C. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act

1) Claim on the perception of intention or illegality: Defendant B, C, F, and G

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the circumstances as seen earlier, the lower court determined that the perception of intent or illegality was sufficiently recognized as to the fact that, inasmuch as the Defendant B, C, F, and G obtained the sales proceeds of the game machine and received the sales proceeds of the game machine from investors in the United States by pretending to be used in purchasing the game machine in Korea and the United States, even though they did not have money in the various stages, such as the head of headquarters, division, division, agent, and agent in X and Z, and thus, received the sales proceeds of the game machine from investors in collusion with W, etc. in collusion with other similar organizations in order to only conduct the monetary transaction without the transaction of goods, etc. or to make the actual monetary transaction by

B) The judgment of this Court

(1) Defendant B, C, and F

As seen earlier, the lower court’s above determination on Defendant B, C, and F is reasonable, if this court finds out the circumstances that were additionally incurred in recognizing the criminal intent of the acquisition by deception against Defendant B, C, and F.

Therefore, this part of Defendant B, C, and F’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Defendant G

The above judgment of the court below on Defendant G is not acceptable.

In full view of the circumstances revealed in light of the above, it is insufficient to deem that this court’s intent to obtain fraud against Defendant G was proven, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the intent of Defendant G to only engage in money transactions without trading goods, etc., or to actually engage in gold transactions by pretending to trade goods, etc. using a multi-level similar organization as stated in this part of the charges, in collusion with W, etc.

Therefore, this part of Defendant G’s assertion is with merit.

2) The argument that the elements of a crime are satisfied: Defendant B, C, and F

A) Relevant provisions of the Door-to-Door Sales Act

The definitions of the terms used in this Act are as follows: 5. The term "multi-level marketing" means selling goods, etc. through a sales control meeting all the following requirements (hereinafter referred to as "multi-level marketing organization"). A recruitment method exists for which a salesperson affiliated with a sales business entity solicits a specific person to join a subordinate salesperson of the relevant sales organization; or a recruitment method for which a salesperson affiliated with a sales business entity solicits a specific person to join a subordinate salesperson of the relevant sales organization;

Each salesperson shall be classified as a first-stage salesperson or higher: hereinafter the same shall apply): Provided, That a salesperson shall be classified as a salesperson.

9. “Support allowances” means the economic benefit that a sales business entity pays to its subordinate salespersons in connection with the following matters, irrespective of its name or form of payment, such as sales allowances, brokerage fees, incentives, and support payments, even if the stages are two or less levels of sales. It means the economic benefit that a sales business entity pays to its subordinate salespersons in connection with the following matters. (a) The transaction performance of other salespersons that affect the salesperson’s bonus; (b) the organization management, education, and training performance of other salespersons that affect the salesperson’s bonus; and (c) other economic benefit that is paid to encourage or compensate the sales activities of the salespersons in addition to the provisions of items (a) through (c) (i) any person shall not engage in any of the following acts using a multi-level sales organization or any similar organization that is composed of persons who have joined the sales business entity:

If the amount equivalent to three times the total amount of the price sold or traded by a person who commits an offense in violation of this Act exceeds 200 million won, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years, or by a fine not exceeding three times the total amount of the price of transaction;

B) Determination

An act of violating the Door-to-Door Sales Act under Article 24 (1) 1 (b) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, i.e., a prohibited act under Article 24 (1) 1 (b) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, is an act of practically making money transactions by pretending the transaction of goods, etc. through a multi-level marketing organization or any similar organization that is composed of persons by stages, and of which a sales contract is entered into with a salesperson for the sale of goods, etc. and pays bonuses

The legislative intent of Article 24(1)1 (b) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act is to prevent damage caused by illegal multi-level sales organizations. According to the current regulations on multi-level marketing under the Door-to-Door Sales Act, unlike the former Act, there is no need to be a consumer for goods, etc. supplied by multi-level marketing business entities. Therefore, in light of the fact that a salesman is engaged in sales brokerage, etc. without concluding a direct sales contract, among the above elements of the act, "the act of paying bonus" in the part of "the act of paying bonus without any justifiable reason after concluding a sales contract with a seller" and without supplying the equivalent goods, etc., is not construed as "the person who is disadvantageous to the sales business entity or any similar organization in accordance with the internal class system, but also includes a person who entered into a sales contract with respect to goods, etc. supplied

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and this court, the salesman's duties in X and Z, which are similar to the multi-level sales organization, are mediated by a company's game sales contract. Thus, the other party who entered into a contract for the sales of a company and a game machine exist not only the internal sales salesperson (a person who purchased it for profit, such as entrusted management commission, etc.) but also the investors who are not the sales salesperson. Thus, the part which entered into a contract for the sales of a game machine with an investor, other

Furthermore, Article 2 Subparag. 9 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act includes economic benefits that a salesperson receives in relation to his/her transaction performance. In light of such provisions, an entrusted management fee, which is an economic benefit that an investor, other than a salesperson, receives after concluding a contract for sales of a game machine with X, etc., may be deemed as the bonus under the above

Therefore, this part of Defendant B, C, and F’s assertion is without merit.

3) As to the disagreements with the purchase price in the crime sight table in the holding of the court below: Defendant B, C, and F's assertions are examined based on the amount of each correction column in the annexed sheet 2-1 (Defendant B), annexed crime sight table 3-1 (Defendant C), annexed crime sight table 6-1 (Defendant F) and annexed sheet 6-1 (Defendant F) which are the facts charged as to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act against Defendant B, C, and F in accordance with the decision of changes in the indictment of this court.

According to the records of this case (Evidence No. 458 sales files), among the revised charges against Defendant B, C, and F, the parts of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 2-2 (Defendant B), the annexed Table 3-2 (Defendant C), the annexed Table 6-2 (Defendant F) and the annexed Table 6-2 (Defendant F) do not have sales details, and each of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 2-3 (Defendant B), the annexed Table 3-3 (Defendant C), the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F), and the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F) are calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the pertinent victims. Therefore, there is no proof of crime regarding this part.

Therefore, this part of the defendant B, C, and F's argument is with merit.

4) Ex officio determination for Defendant A, D, and E: The portion of the difference between the purchase price in the crime sight table.

As above, the judgment on the inconsistency between the purchase price in the crime sight table against Defendant B, C, and F is common to Defendant A, D, and E, which are co-defendants, ex officio. This part is examined as follows: according to the court's decision on the modification of the indictment, the amount of each correction column for the annexed Form 1-1 crime sight table (Defendant A), annexed Form 4-1 crime sight table (Defendant D), and annexed Table 5-1 crime sight table (Defendant E) which are the facts charged as to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act against Defendant A, D, and E.

According to the records of this case (Evidence No. 458 Sales Contents Files), each of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 1-2 (Defendant A) and the annexed Table 5-2 (Defendant E) among the facts charged in the above changes against Defendant A and E does not have sales details, and the sequences listed in the annexed Table 1-3 (Defendant A), the annexed Table 4-2 (Defendant D), and the annexed Table 53 (Defendant E) are calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims. Thus, there is no proof of crime regarding this part.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act against Defendant A, D, and E should be reversed.

5) Sub-committee

For more than anything above, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants in violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (However, the part against the defendantE's violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act) has a ground for ex officio reversal, or there is a ground for misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by defendant B, C,

D. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Receipt of Similar Loans

1) Claim on the perception of intention or illegality: Defendant B, C, F, and G

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined as follows by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances as seen earlier.

① Defendant B, C, F, and G emphasize that there was no amount of profit paid to investors for KRW 11,00,000 in the name of the purchase price for a game machine, Defendant B, C, F, and G, while explaining that if the profit was less than the amount of profit due to a natural disaster, etc., the payment of the profit would have been made even if the amount of profit was increased in the period for payment of the profit. As such, Defendant B, C, F, and G agreed to guarantee the said investment amount of KRW 11,00,000 and additional profit, these acts by the said Defendants are deemed as an act of fund-raising without delay as stipulated

In addition, X and Z could not be deemed to have sold the game machine in Korea accurately in response to the game machine existing in the United States, and the ownership of the game machine is reverted to X and Z upon the expiration of the contract period of three years, etc. In fact, the transaction was conducted without the transfer of ownership of the game machine. It is deemed that Defendant B, C, F, and G were aware of these circumstances, and thus, it is also recognized as intention.

B) The judgment of this Court

(1) Defendant B, C, and F

As seen earlier, the lower court’s above determination on Defendant B, C, and F is reasonable, if this court finds out the circumstances that were additionally incurred in recognizing the criminal intent of the acquisition by deception against Defendant B, C, and F.

Therefore, this part of Defendant B, C, and F’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Defendant G

The above judgment of the court below on Defendant G is not acceptable.

In full view of the circumstances revealed in light of the above, it is insufficient to view that this court’s intent to obtain fraud against Defendant G is insufficient to prove the intent to commit fraud. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the intent that Defendant G knew that the sale of the game machine according to the instant project is a money transaction that actually leads to the transaction of the goods.

Therefore, this part of Defendant G’s assertion is with merit.

2) As to the disagreements in the purchase price list of crimes in the holding of the court below: Defendant B, C, and F's assertions are examined based on the amount of each correction column in the annexed sheet 2-1 (Defendant B), annexed Table 3-1 (Defendant C), annexed Table 6-1 (Defendant F) and annexed sheet 6-1 (Defendant F) which are the facts charged with the alteration of the violation of the Act on the Unauthorized Collection of Crimes against Defendant B, C, and F in accordance with the decision of changes in the indictment of this court.

According to the records of this case (Evidence No. 458 sales files), among the revised charges against Defendant B, C, and F, the parts of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 2-2 (Defendant B), the annexed Table 3-2 (Defendant C), the annexed Table 6-2 (Defendant F) and the annexed Table 6-2 (Defendant F) do not have sales details, and each of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 2-3 (Defendant B), the annexed Table 3-3 (Defendant C), the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F), and the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F) are calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the pertinent victims. Therefore, there is no proof of crime regarding this part.

Therefore, this part of the defendant B, C, and F's argument is with merit.

3) Ex officio determination for Defendant A, D, and E: The portion of the difference between the purchase price in the crime sight table.

As seen earlier, the determination on the inconsistency between the purchase price in the list of crimes against Defendant B, C, and F is common in relation to Defendant A, D, and E, which are co-defendants, ex officio. This part is examined as follows: (a) according to the court’s decision on the modification of the indictment, the amount of each of the amended amounts in the attached Table 1-1 (Defendant A), attached Table 4-1 (Defendant D), attached Table 5-1 (Defendant D), and attached Table 5-1 (Defendant E).

According to the records of this case (Evidence No. 458 Sales Files), each of the sequences listed in the annexed Table 1-2 (Defendant A) and the annexed Table 5-2 (Defendant E) among the facts charged in the above changes against Defendant A and E does not exist, and each of the annexed Table 1-3 (Defendant A), the annexed Table 4-2 (Defendant D), and the annexed Table 5-3 (Defendant E) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the pertinent victims. Thus, there is no proof of a crime regarding this part.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that did not prove a crime should be reversed.

4) Sub-committee

For this reason, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants in violation of the Act on the Unauthorized Receipt of Goods (However, the part against the defendant E guilty of violating the Act on the Unauthorized Receipt of Goods) is reversed ex officio, or there is some reason for the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant G

E. Defendant D’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles on the application of the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act

1) The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court rejected Defendant D’s assertion that punishment should be mitigated or exempted pursuant to the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act.

① It is recognized that Defendant D provided the beginning of the investigation into W/Y as the principal offender to an investigative agency through the FP as an attorney-at-law.

(2) However, Article 8(1) of the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act provides that "a person who intends to report public interest shall submit to an investigation agency, etc., a report stating the name, resident registration number, address, and contact information of a whistleblower, a person who infringes on public interest, the content of (c) infringing on public interest, the purpose and reason of the public interest report, together with evidence of an act infringing on public interest." Article 8(2) provides that "Any person who intends to report public interest may make an oral report, notwithstanding paragraph (1)."

③ It is difficult to recognize that Defendant D made a public interest report in the form of a report or made a special reason for not being able to submit a report in accordance with the above Act, and it is difficult to view that it constitutes grounds for reduction or exemption of punishment prescribed in Article 14(1) of the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act. Furthermore, mitigation or exemption of punishment prescribed in the above Act is not a reason for voluntary reduction or exemption, not a reason for

2) The judgment of this Court

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and this court in light of the provisions of the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

Therefore, this part of Defendant D’s assertion is without merit (However, Defendant D provided a beginning of the investigation of W andY, the principal offender, and served as a considerable role in preventing the expansion of damage caused by this case. Thus, this point should be considered when determining the sentencing of Defendant D).

5. Conclusion

A. The judgment of the court below regarding Defendant A is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) and it is again decided as follows.

B. Since the part of the judgment of the court below on Defendant B has a ground for ex officio reversal or there is a ground for appeal by Defendant B, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant B, and the judgment is rendered again following the pleadings. Since the part on conviction against Defendant C in the judgment of the court below is a ground for reversal ex officio or there is a ground for appeal by Defendant C, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the argument of unfair sentencing by

D. Since the judgment of the court below on Defendant D has a ground for reversal ex officio, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing on Defendant D, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

E. Since the part of the judgment of the court below on Defendant E (including the part on acquittal in the grounds of appeal) is a ground for ex officio reversal, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the argument on unfair sentencing of Defendant E, and it is again decided as follows.

F. Of the judgment below, the guilty part against Defendant F is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant F’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and the appeal against Defendant F is again decided as follows.

G. Since the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant G among the judgment below is on the ground of ex officio reversal, or Defendant G’s appeal is with merit, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant G, and the judgment below is

[C] Facts of crime 10 WW 10 is the representative director of X, and Y is the representative director of X and Z. AB and AC are the chief of the headquarters of X, AD, AE, AF, AG, and H are the chief of the headquarters of X, and the head of the headquarters of the headquarters of X 1 and the head of the headquarters of the headquarters of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 10th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 10th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 10th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 20th office of the 10th office of the 10th office of the 10th office of the 201.

1. A violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), Defendant A, C, D, E, and F conspired with W,Y, AB, AC, AE, AE, AF, AF, and AG successively. From around 201 to January 201, Songpa-gu AJ building K and Gangnam-gu Seoul, X office on the second floor, the head office in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and ZM in the third floor, and the nation-wide branch office, with the victim N, AO, AP, AP, Q, AS, AV, AV, to the effect that the amount of one share of 600,000,000 won and one hundred and sixty-eight,000,000 won and one hundred and sixty-eight,000,000 won and one hundred and sixty-eight,000,000 won and one hundred and sixty-eight,00,000 won and one hundred and sixty-one,00,000 won and one,00 won and one,000 won.

However, in fact, the amount of money used for the purchase of a game machine among the total amount of money received by the above companies was approximately KRW 700 million, and there was no profit accrued from a profit-making business as explained to the investors. It was operated in a way that continuously receives a high-rate investment attraction allowance of KRW 11 million from the investment fund in a financial multi-level manner that pays to the sales organization at the time of attracting investment and pays profits to senior investors with subordinated investment funds. There was no fact that the profits accrued from the above profit-making business, and around January 5, 2017, there was no fact that the victims paid profits to the investors. Since around January 5, 2017, the amount of losses incurred to the victims was about KRW 183 billion, and the above companies and assets were merely less than KRW 5 billion, as explained to the investors, there was no intention or ability to pay profits to investors by purchasing and operating the game machine in a foreign country as an investment fund.

A. Defendant A

The Defendant, in collusion with the above W, etc. from September 6, 201 to January 5, 2017, by deceiving the victims as above, and from the above date, as described in the column for the amount acquired through deception of the attached Table 1-1 (Defendant A) as shown in the attached Table 1, the Defendant received 6,875,00,000 won to 5 billion won from the victim AX as investment proceeds, and the amount obtained from the victim KP, etc. to 50 million won to 50 billion won per victim (a total sum of the amount collected is KRW 52,364,070,000) as investment proceeds, and acquired 74 to 33630,000 won from the victim AX as investment proceeds, and acquired 6,875,000 won to 206,708,700 won per person, and 200,0000 won (the sum of the amount acquired through deception) as investment proceeds, excluding the sequence No. 1, respectively.

B. Defendant B

The Defendant, in collusion with the above W, etc. from July 27, 201 to January 5, 2017, by deceiving victims as above, and then, as described in [Attachment 2-1 Crime List (Defendant B] No. 5 billion won or more from the victim AX as investment proceeds, the Defendant received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment proceeds, and the amount obtained from the victim KP, etc. from the victim KP, etc. to 50 million won or less per person (a total of 52,364,070,000 won) was received from the victim from the victim KP, etc. under the pretext of investment proceeds, excluding the sequence No. 1, 74 through 3660, the sum of the amount obtained from the victim A, 200,000 won or more per person per investment (a total of 52,000 won or less, 200,000 won or less per person per investment).

C. Defendant C.

In collusion with the above W, etc. from April 201 to March 11, 2016, the Defendant deceivings victims as mentioned above, and was issued an amount of 50 million to 5 billion won per victim from 20,092,270,000 won per victim, etc. (a total of 20,092,270,000 won) from 30 through 49, 51 through 204, 206 through 219, 221 through 1174, 1176 through 1704, and the remaining amount of money obtained from 150 million won per victim B from 150,000 won (a total of 20,092,270,000 won) under the pretext of investment, as described in the sequence other than the sequence 1 to 29, 1176 through 1704, 190, 109, 3009 won (a total of investment amount).

D. Defendant D

The Defendant, in collusion with the above W, etc. from April 9, 201 to August 31, 2015, by deceiving victims as above, and, as described in the remaining sequence except the sequences listed in the column in the column in [Attachment 4-1 Crime List (Defendant D) defraudion amount” 1 to 9, the Defendant respectively received an amount of not less than 50 million won to not less than 5 billion won per victim JP, etc. (a total of 5,35,90,000 won) from the victim JP, etc. as investment money, and, as described in the sequences other than the sequences listed in the sequences other than the sequences listed in the "0" as 10 to 1031,00 won per victim Q Q, etc. (a total of 42,95,530,000 won) from the victim Q Q Q, etc. as investment money and acquired the total of 400,300,530,000 won (a total of investment money).

E. Defendant E

The Defendant conspiredd with the above W, etc. from December 1, 2013 to January 5, 2017, by deceiving victims as above, and received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment proceeds, such as the [Attachment 5-1 Crime List E] No. 5 billion won, and the Defendant received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment proceeds, and the amount obtained from the victim KP, etc. to 50,00 won or less per person (a total of 51,040,770,000 won) from the victim KP, etc. under the pretext of investment proceeds, excluding the sequence No. 1, 733 through 368, and 208, 2006, 209, 2085, 2000 won or more per person per investment (a total of 51,000 won or less per person).

F. Defendant F

In collusion with the above W, etc. from April 201 to December 2015, the Defendant: (a) deceiving victims as mentioned above; (b) obtained an amount of 50 million to 5 billion won per victim from the victim's F Qua, etc. (a total of 11,530,210,000 won) as investment money; (c) received an amount of 50 million won per victim from the victim's F Qua, etc. (a total of 11,530,210,000 won) as investment money; (d) obtained an amount of 18 through 29, 31 through 91, 93 through 45, 457 through 634, 636 through 905, 907 through 1102, 1104 through 1419, 2050 won including the remaining amount of investment money; and (e) obtained an investment order of 705 billion won per victim and less than 705 billion won per person.

2. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and the Act on Receiving Contracts without Permission;

No one shall engage in money transactions using a similar organization in multi-stage to conduct money transactions without conducting any transactions of goods, etc. or concluding a contract for sales of goods, etc. with a salesperson in pretending the transactions of goods, etc., and only pay bonuses without any justifiable ground, and no one shall engage in money transactions with an unspecified number of unspecified persons for the purpose of making payment of the total amount of investments or the amount in excess thereof in the future without obtaining authorization or permission, making registration, reporting, etc.

Nevertheless, Defendant A, C, D, E, and F conspired with the above W, etc. 10,00 won to invite many and unspecified persons at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) above without the authorization or permission of the competent authorities. If X salesperson was introduced to pay KRW 11,00,000 per unit for the purpose of purchasing games after becoming X salesperson, he/she shall be paid KRW 50,000,000 to himself/herself as sales commission (sales commission) and one hundred and sixty-one,00,000 won shall be paid to him/her as sales incentive under the pretext of sales subsidy. The head of the division (director) shall be paid KRW 1,00,000,000 won to the victims, and the head of the headquarters shall be paid KRW 1,000,000,000 to whom he/she is affiliated with the head of the competent authority and the head of the competent headquarters shall be provided with one hundred and sixty-one,00,000,000 won,00 won,00 won.

A. From around September 6, 201 to January 5, 201, Defendant A received KRW 306,339,160,000 from many victims as stated in the [Attachment 1] list 1 to 363 from around 10, 200, and the total amount of KRW 306,339,160,00 from around 10 to 3366, as stated in the [Attachment 1] list 1 to 20.5 (the total amount of KRW 1 to 366,00,000,000,000 from around 20,000). Defendant B received KRW 1 to 30,000,000,000,000 from around 1 to 30,000,000,000 from around 1 to 30,000,000,000,000.

Therefore, in collusion with the above W, the above Defendants entered into a contract for sales of goods, etc. with the salesperson by pretending to trade goods, etc. using a multi-level similar organization, and paid the corresponding goods, etc. without any justifiable reason, and carried out an act of fund-raising business without delay.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence of the above crime is that "Defendant E's legal statement" among the summary of the judgment of the court below is "Defendant E's partial statement"; "Defendant D's partial statement" is "Defendant D's legal statement"; "Witness, BJ, BK, BL and BM's partial statement (excluding Defendant F)" is limited to the other Defendants; witness BI, BJ, BK, BK, BL and BM's partial statement in the nine trial records; witness Eul, BJ, BK, BK, BM', BM's partial statement in each court's protocol (with the exception of witness A, B, C, D, and D, D and some of the above statements in the nine trial records, the defendant F's testimony in the prosecutor's office and some of the interrogation records in the Seoul High Court's office, the defendant's protocol of examination of the interrogation of the suspect's suspect's interrogation of the defendant; the defendant's testimony in the prosecutor's office and some of the prosecutor's office's protocol in Seoul; the defendant's protocol in Seoul High Court's protocol No. 60.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A, B, and E: Article 3(1)1 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the choice of limited term) of the Criminal Act; Article 3(1)2 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (including each victim’s fraud in which the sum of the money acquired is at least KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion) of the Criminal Act; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act of each Criminal Act (including each victim’s fraud in which the sum of the money acquired is at least KRW 500 million), Article 58(1)4, the latter part of Article 24(1)1 (b) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the de facto fraud in monetary transactions); Article 347(1)2 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act; Article 6(1) and (3) of the Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act of the Act (the act of choosing by comprehensively.

B. Defendant C, D, and F: Each of the Defendants C, D, and F: Article 3(1)2 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (including each victim’s fraud with the total amount of money acquired by each victim is at least KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion); Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act, including each victim’s fraud with the total amount of money acquired by each victim is less than KRW 500 million), Articles 58(1)4 and 24(1)1(b) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with labor, including the fact of de facto monetary transactions); Articles 6(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales; Article 30 of the Criminal Act of the same Act (the selection of imprisonment with prison labor,

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A, B, and E: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 38(1)2 of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for Victims AX with the largest penalty];

(b) Defendant C and F: the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code, and Article 30 of each Criminal Code, and Article 37 of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) for the victim AX with the largest penalty for violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act

(c) Defendant D: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for the victim JP with the largest punishment and penalty)

1. Dismissal of application for compensation;

Article 32(1)3 and (2), and Article 25(3)3 and 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 1, 201)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

(a) Defendant A, B, and E: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years nor more than 45 years;

(b) Defendant C, D, or F: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 45 years;

2. Scope of recommendation types according to the sentencing criteria; and

(a) Defendant A, B, and E

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 5 (at least 30 billion won) basic area (at least 6 years of imprisonment) 12

* descriptive criteria: 1-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

[Special Sentencing] Where the victim also has a considerable responsibility for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage, or where the victim has committed a crime against an unspecified number of victims or has committed a crime repeatedly over a considerable period of time (aggravated penalty).

B. Defendant C, D, and F

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 5 (at least 30 billion won) basic area (at least 4 years of imprisonment) 13

* descriptive criteria: 2-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

[Special Sentencing] Where the victim also has a considerable responsibility for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage, or where the victim has committed a crime against an unspecified number of victims or has committed a crime repeatedly over a considerable period of time (aggravated penalty).

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months, 6 years, 4 years and 6 months, 5 years and 5 years, 5 years, and 6 years, 5 years, and 5 years, respectively; and

A. The lower court determined the sentence against Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F, and considered the following unfavorable or favorable circumstances, and various sentencing factors that were shown in the pleadings, such as the age, health, family relationship, character and conduct, environment, and the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime.

① The circumstances are as follows. The instant crime is committed by Defendant A, B, C, D, and F participating in W and Y’s criminal acts and by deceiving money from many investors on the ground of the game machine operation business in X and Z. Defendant A directly participated in managing the said company’s funds as the accounting department of X and Z, and directly engaged in creating false transactions. Defendant B, C, and D are the chief of the headquarters, Defendant E, the chief of the headquarters, Defendant F, and Defendant F, as the chief of the headquarters, leading the victims to their investment for a considerable period of time. The instant crime is committed by approximately KRW 300,00 and the total amount of damage is more than KRW 30,00,000,000, and the amount of damage is more than KRW 300,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won, and there is also need to be organized and less than KRW 30,000,000,000,00.

② The favorable circumstances are as follows. The victims received a considerable amount of money from X and Z as profits, and the actual amount of damage appears to be less than the amount of damage recognized in the facts of the crime in the judgment. Defendants A, B, and E are first offenders, and Defendants C, D, and F have no record of criminal records and severe punishment. Defendant D provided considerable cooperation in the investigation by providing information necessary for the investigation during the investigation process of WW and Y as principal offenders. Defendants A, B, C, D, E, and F agreed with some victims, and their victims do not want to be punished. Defendants B, C, E, and F are elderly, and their health conditions are not good.

B. In light of the above circumstances in light of the court below, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the following facts: (a) Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F were made by agreement with some victims or made efforts to make repayment for damage; and (b) the victims were deemed to have continuously purchased a game machine at a low desire to obtain high profit in the short term; and (c) the victims are deemed to have a considerable responsibility for the occurrence of the instant crime or the expansion of damage (However, in the case of Defendant E, the punishment shall be determined beyond the lower limit of the recommended sentence on the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the fact that the period of crime is shorter than the other Defendants and the amount of profit acquired individually is less than the amount of profit acquired

The acquittal portion

1. Defendant A

A. Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and fraud

As seen earlier, among the charges against Defendant A, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 1-2 (Defendant A) does not exist, and the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 1-3 (Defendant A) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims. Since there is room to deem that the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 1-4 (Defendant A) was not deceiving the relevant victim, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant A, the parts of the [Attachment 1-2] list of crimes (Defendant A) and the parts of the [Attachment 1-4] list of crimes (Defendant A) shall be acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, among this part of the facts charged against Defendant A, the number of offenses listed in the attached Table 1-3 (Defendant A) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is recognized that the relevant victim is guilty of a violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) or a crime of fraud against the relevant victim in the judgment which is related to this part of the facts charged,

B. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and violation of the Act on Receipt of Similar Money

As seen earlier, among the charges against Defendant A, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 1-2 (Defendant A) does not exist, and the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 1-3 (Defendant A) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims, so it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, among this part of the facts charged against Defendant A, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 1-2 and the annexed Table 1-3 (Defendant A) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found that Defendant A was guilty of a violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, which is related to this part of the facts charged, and a violation of the Act on the Conduct of Receiving Contracts without Permission, it is not separately pronounced not guilty.

2. Defendant B

A. Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and fraud

As seen earlier, among the charges against Defendant B, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 2-2 (Defendant B) does not exist, and the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 2-3 (Defendant B) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims. Since there is room to deem that the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 2-4 (Defendant B) in the annexed Table 2-4 (Defendant B) was not accused by the relevant victim, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant B, the parts of the [Attachment 2-2] list of crimes (Defendant B] and the parts of the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 2-4 (Defendant B) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, among this part of the facts charged against Defendant B, the number of offenses listed in the attached Table 2-3 (Defendant B) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is recognized that the relevant victim is guilty of a violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) or a crime of fraud against the relevant victim in the judgment which is related to this part of the facts charged,

B. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and violation of the Act on Receipt of Similar Money

As seen earlier, among the charges against Defendant B, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 2-2 (Defendant B) does not exist, and the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 2-3 (Defendant B) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims, so there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, among this part of the facts charged against Defendant B, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 2-2 (Defendant B) and the annexed Table 2-3 (Defendant B) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that Defendant B was guilty of violating the Door-to-Door Sales Act, which is related to this part of the facts charged and the crime of violating the Act on the Performance of Door-to-Door Sales Act, it shall not

3. Defendant C.

A. Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and fraud

As seen earlier, among the charges against Defendant C, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 3-2 (Defendant C) does not exist, and the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 3-3 (Defendant C) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims. Since there is room to deem that the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 3-4 (Defendant C) was not deceiving the relevant victim, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant C, the parts of the [Attachment 3-2] list of crimes (Defendant C) and the parts of the [Attachment 3-4] list of crimes (Defendant C) shall be pronounced not guilty by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, among this part of the facts charged against Defendant C, the number of offenses listed in the attached Table 3-3 (Defendant C) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is recognized that the relevant victim is guilty of a violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) or a crime of fraud against the relevant victim in the judgment which is related to this part of the facts charged,

B. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and violation of the Act on Receipt of Similar Money

As seen earlier, among the charges against Defendant C, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 3-2 (Defendant C) does not exist, and the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 3-3 (Defendant C) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims, so there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, among this part of the facts charged against Defendant C, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 3-2 (Defendant C) and the annexed Table 3-3 (Defendant C) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that Defendant C was guilty of violating the Door-to-Door Sales Act, which is related to this part of the facts charged and the crime of violating the Act on the Performance of Door-to-Door Sales Act, it shall not

4. Defendant D.

A. Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and fraud

As seen earlier, the part of the indictment Nos. 4-2 (Defendant D) among the charges against Defendant D is the part calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims, and each of the sequence Nos. 4-3 (Defendant D) in the separate charge Nos. 4-3 (Defendant D) is likely to be viewed as not deceiving the relevant victim. Thus, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant D, each of the sequences in attached Form 4-3 (Defendant D) is pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, among the facts charged against Defendant D, the attached Form 4-2 (Defendant D) Nos. 4-2 shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that the relevant victim was guilty of a violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Death) or a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Death) or a crime of fraud against the relevant victim

B. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and violation of the Act on Receipt of Similar Money

As seen earlier, the part of the indictment Nos. 4-2 (Defendant D) among the charges against Defendant D is the part calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims, and thus, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant D, the part concerning the sequence of crime Nos. 4-2 (Defendant D) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and the violation of the Act on the Conduct of Receiving Similar Names, which are related to this part of the facts charged, the sentence shall not be

5. Defendant E

A. Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and fraud

As seen earlier, among the charges of this part of the indictment against Defendant E, each of the sequences in Attached 5-2 (Defendant E) does not exist, and each of the sequences in Attached 5-3 (Defendant E) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims. Since there is room to deem that each of the sequences in Attached 5-4 (Defendant E) is not deceiving the relevant victim, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant E, the parts of the [Attachment 5-2] list of crimes (Defendant E] and the parts of the annexed list of crimes (Defendant E) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of not guilty pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act shall be publicly notified.

In addition, among this part of the facts charged against Defendant E, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 53 (Defendant E) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) or a crime of fraud against the relevant victim in the judgment which is related to this part of the facts charged, it shall not be pronounced not guilty separately from the order.However, it

As seen earlier, the parts of the [Attachment 5-2] List of Crimes (Defendant E) among the charges against Defendant E in this part of the charges are nonexistent, and each of the sequences in the annexed Table 5-3 (Defendant E) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims, so it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant E, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 5-2 (Defendant E) and the annexed list 5-3 (Defendant E) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that Defendant E is guilty of a violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, which is related to this part of the facts charged, and a violation of the Act on the Conduct of Receiving Contracts without Permission, it is not separately pronounced not guilty

6. Defendant F

A. Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and fraud

As seen earlier, the sequences of Attached 6-2 (Defendant F) among the charges against Defendant F in this part of the charges are nonexistent, and each section of the separate order of Attached 6-3 Crimes List (Defendant F) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims. Since there is room to view that each section of the separate order of Attached 6-4 Crimes List (Defendant F) was not deceiving the relevant victim, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant F, the parts of the [Attachment 6-2] list of crimes (Defendant F) and each of the sequences in the annexed Table 6-4 (Defendant F) are pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, among this part of the facts charged against Defendant F, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is recognized to be guilty of a violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) or a crime of fraud against the relevant victim in the judgment which is related to this part of the facts charged, the sentence shall not be

B. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and violation of the Act on Receipt of Similar Money

As seen earlier, the parts of the [Attachment 6-2] List of Crimes (Defendant F) among those charged against Defendant F in this part of the charges against Defendant F do not have sales details, and each of the sequences in the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F) is calculated in duplicate with the purchase amount of the relevant victims, so it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, among this part of the charges against Defendant F, the number of offenses listed in the annexed Table 6-2 (Defendant F) and the annexed Table 6-3 (Defendant F) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that Defendant F was guilty of a violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, which is related to this part of the charges, and a violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, which is related to this part of the charges, and

7. Defendant G

A. Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) and fraud

As seen earlier, this part of the facts charged against Defendant G constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime because it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to

B. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and violation of the Act on Receipt of Similar Money

As seen earlier, since this part of the facts charged against Defendant G constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime because it is difficult to acknowledge intention, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

As seen earlier, among the facts charged against Defendant F, the fraud of the victim KN listed in [Attachment 6-1] No. 92 in [Attachment 6-1] among the facts charged against Defendant F constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of law, and thus, the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 2

The presiding judge, the deputy judge;

Judges Kim Gin-ju

Judges Park Jae-ap

1) The names entered in the number Nos. 1 and 2 above refer to the names of the victims of the sequence in question; hereinafter the same shall apply.

2) Defendant A asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on the grounds of appeal, but on the sixth trial date of this Court

The above argument was withdrawn.

3) Defendant D has asserted a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal.

On the sixth trial date of this Court, the Court withdrawn it.

4) The lower court excluded the part dismissed as an example of blood donation.

5) The lower court excluded the part dismissed as an example of blood donation.

6) Of them, the amount paid out of the proceeds (entrusted management commission) to investors is approximately KRW 424.2 billion.

7) The instant business headquarters incorporated from X to Z shall be four headquarters, namely, one headquarters, two headquarters, three headquarters, and five headquarters:

The former had been.

8) The Suwon District Court 2017Gohap24, 277(combined), 496(Consolidated), specified as the date of commencement of the commission of the offence in W andY

It is the time of being prosecuted.

9) Matters concerning multi-level marketing under the former Door-to-Door Sales Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012)

The definition provisions are as follows, but the revised Door-to-Door Sales Act is a similar multi-level marketing enterprise.

In order to regulate multi-level marketing, ‘consumer' and ‘retail profit' were deleted from among the requirements of multi-level marketing.

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

5. the term “multilevel sales” means a specified benefit which a distributor carries out in certain person the following activities:

In the wholesale sale, retail profits and multi-stage sales made by multi-stage salesmen from selling goods, etc. to consumers;

A right to obtain support allowances paid by each business operator to the multilevel salesman; hereinafter the same shall apply).

shall not be held as at least three stages by phase (or at least three stages by a salesperson who has joined a sales organization).

of the multi-level marketing organization(s) in which the sales organization is organized (s) with not more than two stages;

Management and operation as a sales organization with at least three actual stages among every organization, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Sale of goods, etc. through a sales organization (including a sales organization).

(a) The goods, etc. supplied by the relevant dealer shall be sold to consumers;

(b) Limit to join the whole or part of the consumers as referred to in item (a) as assistant salesman of such specified person;

the assistant multi-stage salesmen shall engage in the same activity as the activity of the specific person in question.

10) without any amendment process to Bill of Indictment to the extent that it does not disadvantage Defendant A, B, C, D, and E’s exercise of their defense rights.

Some were corrected according to the facts obtained through the investigation of evidence.

11) The crime of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), the crime of fraud and the crime of sentencing which set the sentencing guidelines has not been set.

Since the crime of violation of the Customs Act and the crime of violation of the Customs Act are concurrent crimes, a specific sentencing criteria set forth shall be the same.

It shall be based on the lowest limit of the types of recommendations for crimes of violation of the Economic Crimes Act (Fraud).

12) Since it is a single offense, the type and the field of recommendation shall be determined on the basis of an aggregate of the amount of profit; Provided, That the amount of profit;

As a result of addition, the lowest limit of the range of sentence falls under the case where the type of the most severe individual crime increases in one step.

one-third of the members shall be mitigated.

13) Since it is a concurrent offense of the same kind, the type and the field of recommendation shall be determined on the basis of the aggregate of the amount of profit;

As a result of addition, the lowest limit of the range of sentence falls under the case where the type of the most severe individual crime increases in two levels.

1/2 of the Act shall be mitigated.