All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The Defendants (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) committed a violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. in collusion with I, etc., and there was no awareness of illegality. Defendant A did not have any awareness of illegality in collusion with I, etc., even though the president of the Nam-gu regional sales center in Ulsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Inc. (hereinafter “G”) and Defendant B were to be the president of the local sales center in Yangnam-nam Yangsan Special Metropolitan City.

Therefore, the court below committed a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that found all of the facts charged.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1 and the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence in 2 years of imprisonment; Defendant B: 2 years of suspended sentence in 1 year and 6 months of suspended sentence) is too uneased and unfair.

Judgment on the Reasons for Appeal

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendants asserted to the same effect as the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion and convicted all of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning. Examining the reasoning behind the lower court’s determination in comparison with the evidence adopted by the lower court and the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of the instant case constitutes “the act of receiving money under the name of deposit, installment savings, installment savings, deposit, etc., under the agreement to pay the principal in the future or the amount in excess thereof,” while the substance of the act constitutes “the act of receiving money”.