The case holding that, in case where customers sold goods in the way that they would make a final decision on whether to purchase them after consulting customers with the goods with a direct customer with a view to reporting the advertisement of living information area and finding them about the goods, it does not constitute a mail order under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act

The case holding that it does not constitute a "mail sale" under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, in case where customers sold goods in such a way that customers would make a final decision on whether they will purchase goods after consulting their customers with a direct customer with the product with a view to reporting the advertisement of living information area.

Articles 2 subparagraphs 1 through 6, 61 subparagraph 5, and 17 (1) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 97Da3355 delivered on September 12, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, the evidence presented by the court below as evidence of guilt is not admissible as all of the illegally collected evidence by the police investigation, and no other evidence exists to support the facts charged of this case, the court below accepted the facts charged of this case and found the defendant guilty. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and second, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment of party members

Before determining the above grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant guilty by applying Articles 61 subparag. 5 and 17(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, without reporting to the Mayor/Do governor, even though the defendant wanted to run the door-to-door sales business of health food, and without reporting to the Mayor/Do governor, from January 20, 1996 to November 6, 198 of the same year by installing a book and telephone board at approximately 8 square meters located in Suwon-gu 198-dong, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 198.

However, Article 61 Item 5 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act provides that a person who engages in a mail order business without reporting under Article 17 (1) of the same Act shall be punished. Article 2 Item 6 of the same Act provides that "a seller or service provider shall advertise goods or services using media, such as advertisements, mail, telecommunications, newspapers, magazines, etc., and sell goods or services at the consumer's order or provide services under the conditions as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance." However, according to the evidence presented by the court below and the witness's statement at the trial of the case where the police officer in charge of this case reported daily information and consultation about health, the defendant's health information and consultation with the customers with respect to the efficacy and price of the goods, and the defendant can not be acknowledged as constituting a sale order under Article 2 Item 6 of the same Act or a sale order under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the same Act, and there is no evidence that the defendant's order or sales business under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the same Act can be acknowledged as a sale order of the above.

Therefore, although the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and should have been acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below convicted the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on mail order under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, a party member is reversed the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is rendered again after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as stated in Paragraph (2). As seen in the same paragraph, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s business method constitutes a mail order under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime, and thus, it is decided not to be guilty under the latter part of Article 3

Judges Kim Hong-sung (Presiding Judge)