The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B KRW 7,000,000, Defendant C is punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,000, Defendant A, D, and .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D (1) misunderstanding of facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which found that Defendant D (1) conspired to establish, manage, and operate a multi-level marketing organization, even though the effect of reporting assistive food is good and introduced the above auxiliary food to only one person.

(2) The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. On December 10, 2012, Defendant A, C, E, Defendant A, B, and E are dissatisfied with the lower judgment and filed an appeal on December 7, 2012, and Defendant A, B, and C were served with the notice of notification of the receipt of the trial record and the notice of the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel by each court on January 8, 2013; Defendant E was served with the notification of the receipt of the trial record and the notice of the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel by each court on January 27, 2012; Defendant C did not submit the grounds of appeal within 20 days from the date of

However, even though Defendant A, E, Defendant B, and C alleged unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal on the date of the appellate trial, this does not need to be determined as a matter of principle as to the submission period for the grounds of appeal and the grounds for appeal after the appeal. Even when considering the mistake of facts and the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing alleged by each Defendants, the grounds for ex officio examination on the records cannot be found, and it does not be separately determined

C. The Prosecutor’s reasons for appeal against the Defendant A, D, and E by the lower court for the appeal against the said Defendants (one million won by each fine) are too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant D and the Prosecutor, the lower court ex officio examined the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 51(1)1 and 13(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

However, the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., which was enforced on December 7, 2012, which was the date of the decision of the court below, was amended by Act No. 11461, Jun. 1, 2012, Article 1 of the Addenda of the Act was more than three months after its promulgation.