All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012) provides that multi-level marketing refers to selling goods, etc. through a multi-level marketing organization by a dealer. Here, “goods, etc.” refers to goods or services (including the right to use a certain facility or to receive a service), and “sale” refers to the concept that includes consignment and brokerage.

(See Item 1 of the same Article) and other regulations stipulate that multi-level marketing business operators shall register with the Fair Trade Commission (Article 13), and any person who opens, manages, or operates a multi-level marketing organization without registration shall be punished.

(Article 51(1)1. The lower court determined that Defendant A, B, C, and D had been engaged in multi-level marketing business without registering multi-level marketing business in collusion with Qua of directors in charge of financing M on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Furthermore, the court below rejected the above defendants' assertion that the sales of the above defendants are merely eligible to act as a consortium, and it is impossible to conclude a consumer damage compensation insurance contract, etc. necessary for registering multi-level marketing business with respect to selling such qualification in the multi-level marketing, and thus, it is impossible to register multi-level marketing business. The court below rejected the above defendants' assertion on the ground that the above defendants' registration fees for consortiums received from the lower consortiums are merely excessive to the subscription fees for multi-level marketing salespersonss and the qualification of the consortiums itself does not constitute the goods, etc. sold by M.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, first of all, we affirm the judgment of the court below that recognized the conspiracy relationship between the above Defendants and Q, and there is a misapprehension of the legal principles or logical or empirical rule alleged in the grounds for appeal.