All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements, etc. submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal).

1. According to the record as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, D, and BH, the above Defendants appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only the unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the “act of sharing” and “public offering” cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant F, M, N, X, X, AW, AX, and AZ, the lower court acknowledged that the above Defendants, in collusion with the joint Defendant A, etc. of the lower court, committed an excessive burden of at least KRW 50,00 per annum, including the purchase of goods, etc., subject to the application of the payment criteria for the allowances for registration, qualification maintenance, or favorable support support to the multi-level salesman, in collusion with the joint Defendant A, etc. of the lower court.

The decision was determined.

In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against the above Defendants is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the remaining Defendants, the lower court acknowledged facts based on the adopted evidence, and based on the facts stated in its reasoning, the said Defendants.