The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and B are not guilty. Defendant C’s appeal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C (Lawio) was a member of a start-up business operated by himself, but the lower court erred by misapprehending himself/herself as a consumer, and the sales salesperson did not pay a retail margin in addition to bonuses. Thus, Defendant C does not constitute multi-level marketing under the former Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter “former Sales Act”).

B. Defendant A and B participated in the crime of this case with the knowledge that Defendant C would engage in multi-level marketing.

2. The circumstances of the lower court’s determination as to Defendant C are as follows: (a) Defendant C publicizedd the members of the E business start-up (GS) as “aggressive consumers making most of the E business start-up members into sulfur”; (b) 10,000 EV can be accumulated after purchasing specific products registered in the said shopping mall; (c) Defendant C purchased specific products registered in the said shopping mall and made them use in cash by paying retail profits or returning prices to some reserve funds under the name of the E business start-up members; and (c) Defendant C made it possible for them to use in cash, taking into account the fact that the members of the E business start-up organization established and operated by the E business start-up organization pursuant to the former Act, including the fact that the purchase of specific products registered in the said shopping mall is conducted by E business start-up (PS) and the fact that the members of the E business start-up organization made up at least KRW 3,000,000,0000 from the market machine (GS); and

3. Determination as to Defendant A and B

(a) An ex officio judgment prosecutor on changes in indictment;