1. The part of the judgment below, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles);

A. The Defendant transferred the Defendant’s right to operate a home-based sales business to the victim, stating that the sum of monthly fees for home-based sales business, i.e., monthly profits amounting to KRW 4 million, and did not mean that the monthly net profits amount to KRW 5 million.

B. In addition, the Defendant did not say that the victim would be eligible for a non-conditional subsidy in E, and the Defendant would not be deemed to have notified the victim of the false fact, after hearing from the worker in charge of the F that “The I agency operated in the Dong-dong area in the past as F and I were integrated with the F, may be integrated into a F agency,” and that the victim could receive the business rights of the said I agency from the victim and obtain the exclusive profit.

C. Even if the Defendant made a somewhat exaggerated speech about the possibility of the integration of monthly income, subsidies, and door-to-door agency, it cannot be deemed as deviating from the permissible extent in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant provided a temporary subsidy of KRW 50-1500,000 per month from the end of February 2, 2012 to the beginning of March 2012, when operating each E and F agency in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, with a small quantity of delivery from the end of February 2012 to the beginning of March 2012, when operating the agency, accumulated losses, and continuously expressed his/her intent not to renew the contract upon the expiration of the contract term of the agency on April 30, 2012.

As such, the Defendant: (a) the victim C, who is running a livestock industry in the course of operating E and F’s agencies, has interest in the selective distribution business; and (b) the victim’s dynamic zone of E and F, the business feasibility of which is not good for the victim (hereinafter “instant goodwill”).