Defendants are not guilty.

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) is a company that registered multi-level sales business in Seoul on June 23, 2016, and Defendant A is a multi-level marketing business entity that recruited multi-level marketing organizations in B.

A. Defendant A1) On October 11, 2016, Defendant A1 said that “The Defendant may receive support allowances of KRW 5,500,000,000, and KRW 600,000,000, from the victim F of Seongbuk-gu Etel 641, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, and then purchase more than 35% of our cosmetic health food, etc. if it is registered as a member, and if it is in the course of a phased sales structure by joining another member, it is possible to receive support allowances of KRW 5,50,00,00, such as co-ownership allowances, KRW 35% of the co-ownership allowances, KRW 13% of the co-ownership allowances, KRW 14% of the co-ownership allowances (monthly concept), KRW 23% of the personal class allowances, and KRW 15,00,000 annually.”

However, at the time of paying subscription fees and registration fees, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to bring up the purchase of goods, and even if he received subscription fees, etc. from the injured party due to the lack of financial standing B at that time, some of the money was personally used, and there was no intention or ability to pay the support allowances promised to the injured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, received 30,300,000 won from the victims over 16 times from October 11, 2016 to November 22 of the same year by deceiving the victims and receiving 30,000,000 won from the victims under the pretext of joining the victim.

2) The column of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. applicable to the indictment for violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. does not indicate where the Defendant’s violation constitutes any of the items of Article 24(1)1 of the Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. Act, and it is difficult for the Defendant to know about the violation itself as well as the contents of the indictment. However, the Defendant’s direct payment of support allowances to the victims does not constitute either item (a) or (b).