logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.12.22 2016노1243
방문판매등에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged the misunderstanding of facts does not inform business operators of false or exaggerated facts as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below or induce or trade consumers by using deceptive means, or instruct them to interfere with the cancellation of order or cancellation or termination of contract.

Even if some of the business members engage in an unfair business activity in violation of the company's guidelines, it cannot be evaluated as encouraging or impliedly encouraging the business members' individual fault at the company level.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The court below’s decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 50 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the original judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant, when selling the above resort membership rights, can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant either knew false or exaggerated facts as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the original judgment, or entices or trades with consumers by using deceptive means, or interferes with cancellation of order or cancellation of contract.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

3. In light of the following circumstances in determining the allegation of unfair sentencing, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s specific business type, period, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, methods of committing the crime, and all other matters pertaining to the sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant does not seem to be unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is also rejected.

(1) Door-to-door sales, etc.

arrow